Tonight:
5°c
A 'fabulous' wedding but marriage did not exist in law
Paul Cheston, Courts Correspondent5 Jun 2009
IT WAS a "fabulous" rooftop wedding overlooking the sun-kissed oceans of Cape Town.
The bride wore a sumptuous gown and the guests were in their finery. But a High Court judge ruled today that under English law the wedding of a wealthy London estate agent and the mother of his child was "a non-existent marriage".
Robert Leigh, 49, had proposed to Gillian Hudson and they fixed a religious ceremony at his South African second home so she could feel married in the eyes of God.
A second legal civil marriage in a register office in London was planned for a few weeks later.
But before the second ceremony could take place the couple split up. Ms Hudson went to court to prove that there had been a marriage so she could get a divorce and a share of his assets.
Ms Hudson, 43, is a devout Christian while Mr Leigh's own lawyers described the estate agent as an "atheist Jew".
They had met in England in 1992 and Ms Hudson discovered she was pregnant in September 2000.
Mr Leigh was supportive throughout the pregnancy, was present when Ms Hudson gave birth to their daughter and has supported the child ever since, the court heard. But at the wedding in Cape Town in January 2004 they agreed to leave out the words "no just impediment", "your lawful wife and husband" and "does anyone know of any just cause of impediment".
The judge said, after watching the wedding DVD, the service was clearly "very loving and romantic and genuinely spiritual" for Ms Hudson.
He added: "It was a fabulous rooftop setting...they were a very happy couple appearing to be very much in love."
Ms Hudson went to court to argue that the Cape Town ceremony was a valid marriage. A void marriage would still allow her to seek a divorce settlement.
But the judge agreed with Mr Leigh's lawyers that it was a "non-marriage or non-existent marriage".
He said: "I make a declaration that it didn't create the status of a marriage between Mr Leigh and Ms Hudson.
"It will mean, unhappily for her, that she has no rights to apply for financial relief for her."
Reader views (2)
Finally some justice for men! Money grabbers beware,
the law isn't always biased towards you.
- Danny, Watford UK, 05/06/2009 17:45
Report abuse
Looks like this swine flew!
- Sue R, London, 05/06/2009 16:17
Report abuse
