Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
For the Respondent: Mr E Anyene, Counsel instructed by Michael & Co Legal Services
The application was refused on 23 December 2013 because (according to the Secretary of State), the marriage was not recognised in Ghanaian law, the relationship between the appellant and the EEA sponsor was not durable and there was insufficient evidence that the EEA sponsor was exercising treaty rights.
The appellant appealed against the decision of the Secretary of State on the basis that the marriage and registration were properly conducted in accordance with the laws of Ghana. The matter was determined on the papers at the request of the appellant by First-tier Tribunal Judge A M Baker who went on to allow the appeal because the respondent �was trying to set the bar at a higher level than is legitimate under current case law and legislation�.
Permission to appeal against the decision was granted to the Secretary of State by Judge Chambers in a decision of 7 May 2014. Thus the matter came before me.
The grounds seeking permission to appeal argue that the decision is not in accordance with Kareem (Proxy marriages - EU law) Nigeria [2014] UKUT 24 . The Judge should have considered whether or not the marriage was valid in Portugal and the Judge erred in finding that there was no need to consider Regulation 6 of the 2006 Regulations.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.