Azad v Entry Clearance Officer (Dhaka)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2000 |
| Date | 20 December 2000 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Kennedy, Laws LJJ Jacob J
R Scannell for the appellant
Miss L Giovannetti for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgments:
Berthiaume v DastousELR [1930] AC 79.
BegumUNK (unreported) (16 March 1990).
Certificate of entitlement to right of abode child of sponsor's third marriage in Bangladesh whether applicant legitimate son of his father in English law whether applicant's mother had no reason to believe that the marriage would be invalid in English law whether that was the correct test to apply in satisfaction of the requirements of the Legitimacy Act 1976 the meaning of reasonably believed that the marriage was valid. Legitimacy Act 1976 (as amended) ss. 1, 10: British Nationality Act 1989 ss. 2(1), 50(9)(b): Family Law Reform Act 1987 s. 28.
The applicant was a citizen of Bangladesh. He was a son of the sponsor by his third wife: his first and second wives, at the date of that marriage, were still living. He applied for a certificate of entitlement to a right of abode: that was refused by the entry clearance officer. Appeals were dismissed by an adjudicator and the Tribunal.
Before the court it was questioned whether the phrase reasonably believed that the marriage was valid in section 1 of the Legitimacy Act 1976 referred solely to a reasonable belief according to English law. For the appellant it was contended that it referred to a reasonable belief according to the lex loci celebrationis.
The court considered whether there was any evidence to support the view that the third wife had had a reasonable belief that her marriage was valid in English law.
Held
1. The phrase reasonably believed that the marriage was valid referred to a reasonable belief according to English law.
2. There was no evidence as to the state of mind of the third wife at the date of the marriage; it was not sufficient for it to be assumed that she had had no reason to believe that the marriage would be invalid in English law; Begum disapproved.
3. The appellant was not entitled to a certificate of entitlement to a right of abode.
1. Kennedy LJ: Jacob J will give the first judgment.
2. Jacob J: The appellant, Mr Azad, appeals from a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal of 11 January 2000. The Tribunal upheld the refusal to grant him a certificate for a right of abode. Permission to appeal to this court was granted by Sedley LJ in May 2000.
3. The appeal raised two short points. The appellant is the son of Azad Miah and his third wife, Rukeya Begum Azad. His father is a British citizen, having been so registered in 1962. The father's first marriage continues to subsist. He and his first wife, with their six children, are, and at all relevant times were, domiciled here. There were second and third marriages in Bangladesh, the third marriage taking place in 1973. The appellant was born in Bangladesh in 1984. By the second and third wives the father has 11 surviving children. The second and third wives, with their 11 children, have always lived in Bangladesh. In February 1998 the father applied, as sponsor for the appellant, for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode in the United Kingdom. This is a test case for all the children of the second and third marriages. The entry clearance officer refused the application. The appeal was dismissed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AAA v ASH and Others
...as a result. However the belief has to be that the marriage was valid in English law (see the Court of Appeal decision in Misha Azad v Dhaka (2001) Imm AR 318 at para 13). It follows that a belief that the marriage was valid by reason of a ceremony not recognised as constituting a valid mar......
-
A v H (Registrar General for England and Wales and another intervening)
...Co Ltd (in liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1981] 3 All ER 577, [1982] 1 QB 84, [1981] 3 WLR 565, CA. Azad v Dhaka [2001] Imm AR 318, B (a minor) (abduction), Re[1995] 2 FCR 505, [1994] 2 FLR 249, CA. B v UK[2000] 1 FCR 289, [2000] 1 FLR 1, ECt HR. C (child abduction: rights of......