P v P (Transgender Applicant for Decree of Nullity: Human Rights) (Rev1)

Charles Hale KC, Michael Edwards and Tom Tabori (instructed by Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP all acting pro bono) for the Applicant The First Respondent was present but not represented Tom Cross (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Secretary of State for Justice Sarah Hannett KC (appointed by HM Attorney General) Advocate to the Court Hearing dates: 25-26 March 2024 ____________________

i) It is not necessary for me to grant a decree of nullity in order to establish that the marriage celebrated between AP and JP in 2009 was void. I have in fact already made this clear in P v P at [74];

ii) In any event, the court has no jurisdiction, under section 11�of the�Matrimonial Causes Act 1973�('MCA 1973'), to grant a decree of nullity in respect of this particular marriage. There is no longer provision within section 11 MCA 1973 for a decree of nullity to be granted where the parties were of the same legal sex (as these parties were) at the time of the ceremony of marriage.

i) Can section 11�of the� MCA 1973 be read compatibly with Articles 8, 12, 14, and Article 1 of Protocol 1 ('A1P1') of the�ECHR�(pursuant to�section 3�of the� HRA 1998) so as to include a right for AP to apply for a decree of nullity? AP's proposal is that a transitional provision should be read into section 11 MCA 1973, so that section 11(c) (currently omitted) should be deemed to read "(c) for marriages celebrated before 13 March 2014, that the parties are not respectively male and female";

ii) Whether a declaration of incompatibility can or should be issued under�section 4�of the�HRA 1998 in respect of section 11 MCA 1973?