Polygamous Marriages Void Under English Law: The Akhtar Decision and Its Implications for Social Security Benefits

Introduction

The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions v. Akhtar ([2021] EWCA Civ 1353) is a landmark case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on September 10, 2021. The case centers around Nasim Akhtar (NA), who sought entitlement to Bereavement Payment (BP) and Widowed Parent's Allowance (WPA) following the death of her husband, Mr. A. The crux of the dispute lies in the nature of NA's marriage to Mr. A, which was contracted in Pakistan under circumstances that rendered it void under English law due to polygamy. This judgment navigates complex intersections of matrimonial law, social security legislation, and human rights considerations.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. A, domiciled in England, entered into a second marriage in Pakistan in 2008 while still married to his first wife. Under Pakistani law, this constituted a valid polygamous marriage; however, English law, governed by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, deemed the marriage void as Mr. A was already lawfully married. Consequently, NA's claims for BP and WPA were initially denied on the grounds that her marriage was not recognized as valid under English law. Upon appeal, the Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley (UTJ) overturned this decision, focusing on human rights implications and interpreting the Social Security and Family Allowances (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 1975 to extend benefits to NA by deeming her marriage as monogamous during the period it was in fact practiced as such.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) appealed the UTJ's decision, arguing that the regulations should not apply to void marriages. The Court of Appeal ultimately upheld the SSWP’s position, reversing the UTJ's interpretation. The court concluded that the 1975 Regulations do not extend to marriages void under English law, thereby denying NA's entitlement to BP and WPA. The judgment emphasized the necessity of adhering to the legislative framework, maintaining clear distinctions between valid and void marriages for the purposes of social security benefits.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced significant cases and legislative reports that shaped the understanding of polygamous marriages within English law and social security benefits. Notably:

Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866): Established the monogamous definition of marriage in English law.
R(G) 18/52 (1958): Clarified that void polygamous marriages are not recognized for social security purposes.
Iman Din v National Assistance Board (1967): Highlighted the exclusion of polygamous marriages from benefits if they were valid in their place of celebration but void in English law.
Matrimonial Proceedings (Polygamous Marriages) Act 1972: Allowed courts to grant matrimonial relief despite the presence of polygamous marriages.
Social Security and Family Allowances (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 1975: Deemed polygamous marriages as monogamous for specific purposes, provided they were in fact monogamous at the relevant times.
In re McLaughlin [2018]: Determined that denying WPA to unmarried partners in polygamous contexts breaches human rights, influencing the Upper Tribunal's initial decision.
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004]: Discussed the power to read down legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998 to achieve Convention compliance.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on a meticulous analysis of the 1975 Regulations in conjunction with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (SSCBA 1992) and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The primary question was whether the Regulations could apply to a void marriage under English law.

The Upper Tribunal initially interpreted the Regulations expansively, allowing for benefits to be extended to NA by treating her void polygamous marriage as monogamous during the period it was actually practiced as such. This approach was influenced by human rights considerations, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its provisions against discrimination.

However, the Court of Appeal reversed this interpretation, emphasizing that the Regulations were intended to remedy specific injustices arising from previously void but potentially monogamous polygamous marriages under English law. The Court reasoned that extending the Regulations to void marriages would undermine the clear legislative distinctions and the integrity of matrimonial law, which strictly prohibits polygamous marriages for those domiciled in England and Wales.

The judgment underscored that the terms "spouse" and "marriage" in the SSCBA 1992 and the 1975 Regulations inherently referenced legally valid marriages under English law. Therefore, applying the Regulations to void marriages would contradict the legislative intent and the foundational principles of matrimonial law.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the rigid framework governing the recognition of polygamous marriages in England and Wales, particularly in the context of social security benefits. By affirming that the 1975 Regulations do not extend to void marriages, the Court of Appeal:

Maintains the legal sanctity of monogamous marriage under English law.
Restricts the applicability of social security benefits to only those in legally recognized marriages.
Clarifies the boundaries of legislative powers in interpreting regulations in light of human rights provisions.
Sets a precedent for future cases involving the intersection of matrimonial law and social security entitlements.

Additionally, it delineates the limits of reading down legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998, emphasizing that such interpretations must align with the fundamental objectives and structures of the original laws.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Void vs. Voidable Marriages

In matrimonial law, a void marriage is one that is inherently invalid from the outset, such as a bigamous marriage where one party is already legally married to someone else. A voidable marriage, on the other hand, is initially valid but can be annulled by a court due to specific defects.

Polygamous Marriages Under English Law

English law does not recognize polygamous marriages for those domiciled in England and Wales. Any polygamous marriage entered into by someone domiciled here is considered void, meaning it has no legal standing and does not confer marital rights or obligations.

Social Security and Benefit Entitlements

Entitlement to benefits like BP and WPA is contingent upon being a legitimate spouse or civil partner as defined by English law. Marriages that are void under English law do not qualify beneficiaries for these entitlements.

Reading Down Legislation

Reading down refers to interpreting legislation in a way that avoids incompatibility with human rights provisions. However, such interpretations must respect the fundamental structure and purpose of the original law.

Conclusion

The Akhhtar case reasserted the precedence of English matrimonial law in determining eligibility for social security benefits. By ruling that the 1975 Regulations do not apply to void polygamous marriages, the Court of Appeal upheld the integrity of the monogamous marriage framework central to English law. This decision underscores the necessity for clear legal definitions and adherence to legislative intent, especially when navigating complex intersections with human rights law. It also serves as a reminder of the limited scope of regulatory interpretations in extending benefits beyond clearly defined legal frameworks.

Moving forward, individuals in polygamous relationships must navigate the rigid boundaries of English law to ascertain their eligibility for social security benefits. The judgment emphasizes the importance of domicile and the legal recognition of marriage forms in determining rights and entitlements. Consequently, the Akhtar decision stands as a pivotal reference for future litigation and legislative considerations concerning marriage, domicile, and social security law.