Tag Archives: Conflict of laws

High Court Appeal in Zambian Adoption Case Withdrawn

Appeal, Commercial and Chancery, Commercial and International Law, Court of Appeal, , , ,

High Court Appeal in Zambian Adoption Case Withdrawn

Arfan Khan appeared for the successful Claimant at trial and the successful Respondent on appeal in a Zambian adoption dispute, instructed by CV Brooks Solicitors.

On 30 July 2025, following a 2.5-day trial, Deputy Master Jefferis entered judgment for the Claimant. The Deputy Master declined to give effect to the Zambian judgment and held that the Claimant had been lawfully adopted by the deceased. He further determined that the Defendant was not entitled to letters of administration, ordered that the Zambian grant should not be resealed in England and Wales, and awarded costs against the Defendant. Repeated requests for adjournment were refused.

The Appellant subsequently instructed counsel and filed a notice of appeal seeking permission to challenge the trial judgment on complex grounds, including alleged errors of law and fact and a proposed challenge to the fairness of the trial. The Appellant applied for a stay of execution, which was refused on the papers by Mr Justice Mellor. A renewed stay application was made, and an extension of time to file the appeal bundle was requested. The extension request was unopposed.

Following submissions by Arfan Khan on both the renewed stay application and the merits of the proposed appeal, the Appellant’s counsel elected not to pursue the stay at the oral hearing. Mr Justice Rajah dismissed the renewed stay application and ordered the Appellant to pay the Respondent’s costs. The Appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal, which Mr Justice Rajah formally dismissed.

Arfan Khan has acted as lead or sole counsel in close to over 70 reported cases, including landmark decisions in the Court of Appeal and the UK Supreme Court, demonstrating the strength of his practice in Chancery, Commercial, and Public Law.

Press coverage and the Master’s judgments can be accessed via the following links:

Note of the Trial Judgment

  • Master’s Interlocutory Decisions:

Adjournment Decision 1

Adjournment decision 2

Zambian Adoption Recognised in English High Court Probate Trial: Arfan Khan Acts for Successful Claimant

Chancery Division Trial, Conflict of Laws, , , ,

Zambian Adoption Recognised in English High Court Probate Trial: Arfan Khan Acts for Successful Claimant

Introduction

Arfan Khan appeared for the successful Claimant in a contested probate trial before Deputy Master Jefferis in the High Court, Chancery Division. The extempore Judgment was delivered on 30 July 2025, following a 2.5-day trial. The Court granted the Claimant a declaration that he was an adopted son of the deceased and, accordingly, entitled to letters of administration. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant’s costs, including an interim payment on account of such costs.

This was notwithstanding the Defendant’s reliance on a judgment of the Zambian High Court, which had previously granted letters of administration over the same estate to her and another relative.

Procedural Background

The Defendant was initially legally represented, but her legal team withdrew. The Defendant then appeared in person at trial, accompanied by a McKenzie friend, authorised by the Court.

During the hearing, the Defendant made three separate applications to adjourn, one of which was supported by medical evidence that the Court found inadequate. Applying established legal principles on adjournments, the Court refused all three applications and awarded the Claimant costs in respect of each.

Factual Background

The Claimant was adopted in Zambia in November 2002 and subsequently relocated to the United Kingdom, where he lived with the deceased. He was enrolled in school and registered with a GP surgery, naming the deceased as his parent. His UK immigration records confirmed entry as her adopted child.

The Claimant’s adoption status was never disputed during the deceased’s lifetime. However, following her death, the Defendant allegedly excluded the Claimant from estate matters and removed documentation evidencing the adoption. The Defendant later obtained letters of administration in Zambia, but it emerged that the Zambian Court had not been shown key adoption documents, which were subsequently produced in the English High Court proceedings.

The Issues

The central issue for the Court was whether the Claimant had been lawfully adopted by the deceased and, if so, whether he was entitled to letters of administration in priority to the Defendant. The Defendant opposed the Claimant’s application and sought a grant in favour of the deceased’s sibling. She further alleged that the Claimant’s birth certificate was a forgery and invited the English Court to recognise the Zambian grant of administration.

During trial, the Defendant introduced—for the first time—an adoption petition suggesting that the deceased had applied to adopt another relative. She contended that this undermined the Claimant’s case and highlighted alleged inconsistencies in the Claimant’s parentage.

Expert Evidence and Submissions

Arfan Khan conducted the examination-in-chief of the Claimant’s expert in Zambian law. The expert gave evidence as to the authenticity and legal effect of the Zambian adoption documents, confirming that they were valid and binding under Zambian law.

Following the Defendant’s withdrawal from the proceedings, the Court adapted the trial process to ensure procedural fairness by undertaking the cross-examination itself that would ordinarily have been conducted by the Defendant. In response to judicial questions, the expert reaffirmed the validity and binding nature of the adoption order.

Recognition of the Zambian Grant

On behalf of the Claimant, Arfan Khan submitted that the Zambian grant of letters of administration should not be recognised in England and Wales, as it had been obtained in breach of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the Zambian court had not been shown material adoption documents. It was further argued that the adoption documents were authentic and legally valid under Zambian law.

The Court accepted these submissions and declined to give effect to the Zambian judgment. The Judge therefore ordered that the Zambian grant should not be resealed in England and Wales.

The Court also noted a further submission advanced by Arfan Khan on behalf of the Claimant: that, based on the date of birth recorded in the documentary evidence, the individual named in the Defendant’s adoption petition (who was not a party) could not have been a minor at the material time and, accordingly, could not have been lawfully adopted under English law.

Arfan Khan was instructed on behalf of the Claimant by C V Brooks Solicitors