On May 5, 2017, Supreme Court Justice Charles-Etta Simmons ruled that the Registrar-General’s decision to reject a marriage application from a same-sex couple was discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, declaring that “same-sex couples are entitled to be married under the Marriage Act”.
The case had been brought by Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé Greg DeRoche, who took their case to the Supreme Court after the Registrar-General refused to publish their marriage banns, arguing that the Human Rights Act (the “HRA”) took primacy in Bermuda and protected their right to marry. “The facts of this case are relatively simple and straightforward,” Justice Simmons wrote in her introduction. “The Applicants are both male. Each states by affidavit that they met in Canada, the home of the second Applicant, and started dating in 2015. They both love Bermuda, the home of the first Applicant. It is their wish to be married in Bermuda irrespective of their gender as recognition of the feelings that they have for one another.”
A paragraph in the Throne Speech in November of 2013 heralded a proposed change to the Children Act, 1998.
The need to incorporate family mediation into the Act was recognized as a prerequisite for co-parenting orders rather than arising only as a result of a parent’s non-compliance with some existing order. This proposed move to formalize the requirement for mediation brings Bermuda into line with the current practice in many jurisdictions.
The principle of separate legal personality of a company has been affirmed in yesterday’s Supreme Court case of Prest v. Petrodel Resources Limited, and the principles upon which the court will act to “pierce the corporate veil” have been clarified, but it remains the case that upon divorce, the court will look carefully at the reality of the structure to achieve a fair distribution of assets. The decision has important implications for all those engaged in the trusts and corporate services business.
A unanimous Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal yesterday in the case of Prest v. Petrodel Resources Limited and others  UKSC 34 (400 KB PDF). At stake was the issue of whether it is open to the court, in an application for ancillary relief in divorce proceedings, to treat assets of a company of which one spouse is the sole controller as being assets to which that spouse is “entitled” for the purposes of Section 24(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Lying at the heart of the matter are the competing objectives of the commercial and family law divisions, the former of which seeks adherence to established legal principles to ensure commercial certainty for parties dealing at arm’s length, while the latter aims to achieve a “fair result” in circumstances where the parties are dealing at anything but arm’s length.
In an effort to achieve a fair division of matrimonial assets, the Court is increasingly demonstrating its willingness to scrutinise the beneficial interests of divorcing spouses under family trusts.
A high divorce rate seems to have become the norm rather than the exception in the western world. This reality, and the Court’s determination to achieve fairness on the dissolution of marriage, has generated a measure of uncertainty with respect to the treatment of trusts. In a discretionary trust context, a beneficiary has only a right to be considered in the exercise of the trustees’ discretion and this has shielded beneficiaries on divorce, who had no fixed entitlement to any portion of the trust fund. However, the Court, in divorce matters, is concerned about achieving a fair division of marital assets and increasingly has taken the view that a divorcing spouse’s interests under a trust should be subjected to closer scrutiny.