header-logo header-logo

19 February 2020
Issue: 7875 / Categories: Legal News , Family
printer mail-detail

Islamic wedding invalid, not void

A judge should not have granted a decree nisi of nullity to a couple who had an Islamic wedding, a Nikah, because the marriage was not valid under English law in the first place

The couple separated in 2016, some years after the wedding ceremony in a London restaurant in 1998. They had not, as originally intended, held a civil marriage ceremony to make the marriage compliant with English law.

The high court held the Nikah created a void marriage which entitled the wife to pursue a decree of nullity under s 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The husband had argued the ceremony had no legal effect.

However, the Attorney General successfully appealed this decision, in Attorney General v Akhter [2020] EWCA Civ 122. The Court of Appeal held last week that the ceremony was non-qualifying and therefore did not create a void marriage.

The judgment noted that both parties knew the ceremony had no legal effect at the time, and neither their intention to hold a civil ceremony at a later stage nor any other ‘future events’ could change that. Otherwise, ‘this might result in a party being married even when they had changed their mind part way through the process’.

Anna-Laura Lock, senior associate at Winckworth Sherwood, said: ‘The decision has significant ramifications for Ms Akhter and many others in her situation who are denied access to the legal rights and obligations which are available following a divorce or decree of nullity.’

Graeme Fraser, partner at OGR Stock Denton, said: ‘People in Islamic marriages that have not also obtained a civil marriage are in the same perilous position as cohabitants.’

Issue: 7875 / Categories: Legal News , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll