1. QUESTION 2
1. NUR MASTURA BINTIABD HAMID (1629264)
2. FARAH HUSNA BT MUHAMMAD NAZRI (1620448)
3. SITI NOOR BALQIS BT HASMUDDIN (1610630)
4. AMAL SYAHMINA BINTICHE MOHD RUZIMA (1626506)
5. NURAFFRINA BINTIAHGAHAR (1625060)
2. QUESTION 2 (a)
Whether the definition of marriage in the classical case
of Hyde v Hyde (1866) LR 1 P & D 130, is in line with the
provisions laid down in the Law Reform (Marriage &
Divorce) Act 1976.
3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ACCORDING
TOTHE CASE OF HYDEV HYDE
Lord Penzance :
“A voluntary union for life of one man
& one woman to the exclusion of all others.”
4. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ACCORDING
TOTHE CASE OF HYDEV HYDE
Lord Penzance:
“A voluntary union for life of one man
& one woman to the exclusion of all others.”
5. ELEMENTS FOR AVALID MARRIAGE :
ACCORDING TOTHE CASE OF HYDEV HYDE :
1. CONSENT FROM BOTH PARTIES
2. DIFFERENT SEX
3. EVERLASTING
4. MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE
6. ELEMENTS FOR AVALID MARRIAGE :
ACCORDINGTO LAW REFORM (MARRIAGEAND DIVOCE) ACT 1976:
1. CONSENTOF BOTH PARTIES
2. CONSENTOF PARENTS OR GUARDIAN
3. BIOLOGICALLY MALEAND FEMALE
4. MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE
5. AGE OFTHE PARTIES
6. PROHIBITED RELATIONSHIP
7. COMPARISON
HYDEV HYDE ELEMENTS LRA 1976
CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES
CONSENT OF
PARENTS/GUARDIAN
AGE
DIFFERENT SEX
MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE
PROHIBITED RELATIONSHIP
(KINDRED/AFFINITY)
EVERLASTING
8. CONSENT
■ HYDEV HYDE :
MUST BEVOLUNTARILY ENTERED BY BOTH PARTIES.
■ LRA 1976 :
S22(6) NO MARRIAGE SHALL BE SOLEMNISED UNLESSTHE REGISTRAR IS SATISFIEDTHAT BOTH
PARTIESTOTHE MARRIAGE FREELY CONSENTTOTHE MARRIAGE.
S70 GROUNDSONWHICH A MARRIAGE ISVOIDABLE.
(c) THAT EITHER PARTYTOTHE MARRIAGE DID NOTVALIDLY CONSENT TO IT,WHETHER IN CONSEQUENCE OF
DURESS, MISTAKE, UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND OR OTHERWISE;
S37 INTERFERENCEWITH MARRIAGE
S12 REQUIREMENTOF CONSENT
9. AGE
■ LRA 1976 :
S10 AVOIDANCE OF MARRIAGES WHERE EITHER PARTY IS UNDER MINIMUM AGE OF
MARRIAGE
S2 “CHIEF MINISTER”
S21 LICENCE
(2) THE CHIEF MINISTER MAY IN HIS DISCRETION GRANT A LICENCE UNDER THIS SECTION AUTHORIZING THE
SOLEMNIZATION OF A MARRIAGE ALTHOUGH THE FEMALE PARTY TO THE MARRIAGE IS UNDER THE AGE OF
EIGHTEENYEARS, BUT NOT IN ANY CASE BEFORE HER COMPLETION OF SIXTEENYEARS.
S69 GROUND ON WHICH A MARRIAGE ISVOID
(b) A MALE PERSON MARRIES UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR A FEMALE PERSON WHO IS ABOVE SIXTEEN
YEARS BUT UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS MARRIES WITHOUT A SPECIAL LICENCE GRANTED BY THE CHIEF MINISTER
UNDER SECTION
10. DIFFERENT SEX
■ HYDEV HYDE :
BOTH PARTIES MUST BE BIOLOGICALLY MALEAND FEMALE.
■ LRA 1976 :
S69 GROUNDSONWHICH A MARRIAGE ISVOID
(d)THE PARTIES ARE NOT RESPECTIVELY MALE AND FEMALE
11. MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE
■ HYDEV HYDE :
“…. OF ONE MANAND ONEWOMANAND EXCLUSIONOF ALL OTHERS.”
■ LRA 1976 :
S5 DISABILITYTO CONTRACT MARRIAGES OTHERWISETHAN UNDERTHIS ACT
S6 AVOIDANCE OF MARRIAGE BY SUBSISTING PRIOR MARRIAGE
S7 OFFENCE
12. PROHIBITED RELATIONSHIP
(KINDRED/AFFINITY)
■ LRA 1976 :
S11 PROHIBITED RELATIONSHIP
S69 GROUNDSONWHICH A MARRIAGE ISVOID
(c) THE PARTIES ARE WITHIN THE PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP UNLESS THE CHIEF MINISTER
GRANTS A SPECIAL LICENCE UNDER SUBSECTION 11(6)
14. COMPARISON
HYDEV HYDE ELEMENTS LRA 1976
CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES
CONSENT OF
PARENTS/GUARDIAN
AGE
DIFFERENT SEX
MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE
PROHIBITED RELATIONSHIP
(KINDRED/AFFINITY)
EVERLASTING
15. CONCLUSION FOR QUESTION 2 (a)
The definition of marriage in the classical case of Hyde v
Hyde (1866) LR 1 P & D 130, is in line with the provisions laid
down in the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976,
except for the element of everlasting and it does not
compliment all the elements as stated in LRA 1976.
16. QUESTION 2 (b)
Whether Malaysia should follow the development in
England with regard to action for breach of promise to
marry.
17. DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLAND
(BREACH OF PROMISETO MARRY)
BEFORE LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT1970
MARRIED MAN BACHELOR
NOT ENFORCEABLE ENFORCEABLE
NO ACTION ACTION CAN BETAKEN
CASE :WILSONV CARNLEY CASE : SHORTV STONE
18. DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLAND
(BREACH OF PROMISETO MARRY)
AFTER LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)ACT1970 :
■ THE ENGLISH LAW COMISSION CONSIDERED THAT THE PRESENT LAW GIVES
OPPORTUNITY FORCLAIMS OF A “GOLD-DIGGING” NATURE.
■ THE COMMISION THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THE ABOLITION OF THE LRMPA
1970,ANDTHIS RECOMMENDATIONWAS IMPLEMENTED BY S1 OF LRMPA 1970.
■ IT PROVIDES THAT NO AGREEMENT TO MARRY SHALL TAKE EFFECT AS A
LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT AND THAT NO ACTION SHALL LIE IN THIS
COUNTRY FOR BREACH OF SUCH AGREEMENT.
19. POSITION IN MALAYSIA
■ NO PROVISION INTHE LRA ANDOTHER SPECIFIC LEGISLATION.
■ GOVERN BYTHE CONTRACT ACT 1950
■ RELATED PROVISIONSARE SECTION 10, 11, 12 AND 24
■ CASE : RAJESWARYV BALAKRISHNAN
20. CONCLUSION FOR QUESTION 2 (b)
■ FOLLOWTHE DEVELOPMENTOF ENGLAND
■ REASON :
CONSIDERED THAT THE PRESENT LAW GIVES OPPORTUNITY FOR CLAIMS OF A
“GOLD-DIGGING” NATURE.
