In a judgment handed down on 17 January 2025 in Djanogly v Djanogly, Mr Justice Miles: (i) found that Beth Din proceedings are subject to mandatory provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996; (ii) the Beth Din’s failure to address a limitation defence in an arbitral award constituted a serious procedural irregularity; but (iii) rejected other challenges to the award based on lack of substantive jurisdiction and serious irregularity.
In finding that there had been a serious procedural irregularity, Miles J determined that the English Limitation Act 1980 applied to claims brought under Jewish law in Beth Din proceedings by application of s. 13 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which is a mandatory provision. s. 13 of the Arbitration Act 1996 provides that the ‘Limitations Acts’ apply to arbitration proceedings, is mandatory and cannot be contracted out of. The ‘Limitation Acts’ are the English Limitation Act 1980 and the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984. As Jewish law is not the law of “any other country” applicable in accordance with the rules of private international law of the English courts, English law was not disapplied under s. 1 of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 so that the English Limitation Act 1980 applies.
Miles J found that the limitation defence advanced by the claimant to a claim for repayment of loans made by 1989 had become one of the key issues in dispute. There was nothing to suggest that the Beth Din had considered it. Had they done so, the Ben Din may have reached a different conclusion.
The judgment is available here.
Angeline Welsh KC, instructed by Elliot Lister of Asserson Law, acted for the claimant.
