Akhter v Khan (Attorney General intervening)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date2018
Neutral Citation[2018] EWFC 54
Date2018
CourtFamily Court
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
4 cases
  • HM Attorney General v Nasreen Akhter
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 14 Febrero 2020
    ...King DBE and Lord Justice Moylan Case No: B6/2018/2656 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT Williams J [2018] EWFC 54 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Mr D Nagpal and Mr A Habteslasie (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the ......
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2020-07-28, EA/00111/2019
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 28 Julio 2020
    ...marriage, and the parties did not “knowingly and wilfully” intermarry in disregard of the requirements of the MA 1949. In Akhter v Khan [2018] EWFC 54, the Family Court was concerned with an Islamic marriage conducted otherwise than in accordance with the requirements of the MA 1949. The ma......
  • Patricia Kelly-Lambo v Esther Olufunmilayo Lambo
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 21 Octubre 2022
    ...relevant to have regard to the principles that might give rise to a presumption of a state of marriage. In his judgment in Akhter v Khan [2018] EWFC 54, Williams J, addressed the question of the presumption of a valid marriage under English law. At [31] he said this, “ The presumption of ma......
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2018-10-11, EA/10846/2016
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 11 Octubre 2018
    ...seen as a relationship akin to marriage. 3. In relation to ground (iii,) Mr Mustafa sought to rely on the case of Akhter v Khan (Rev 4) [2018] EWFC 54, 31 July 2018 finding that an Islamic marriage was a void 4. It is convenient to deal first with ground (ii). The respondent was not under a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT