Serious Irregularity On Limitation In Arbitration Award Of Tribunal 

The case of Djanogly v Djanogly & Ors [2025] EWHC 61 (Ch) was a family dispute that was considered by the Golders Green Beth Din of the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations.

The highlight in this case apart from the melancholy tale of a family dispute is that you cannot contract out of mandatory limitation when you go to arbitration. The Tribunal it seems did not deal with this issue put to it sufficiently.

The Family Dispute

The claimant Rabbi Saul Djanogly (“SD”) sought relief concerning an award of £100,430.50 made by the Golders Green Beth Din of the Union of Orthodox Hebrew congregations, concerning claims brought by SD’s father, David Djanogly (“DD”)  and a brother of SD.

The challenges under the Arbitration Act 1996 related to matters of jurisdiction and serious irregularity. In the end, a matter of irregularity was found due to limitation issues.

The background was that DD claimed against SD for financial maintenance and other issues under Jewish law. DD claimed poverty and that he had made loans to SD and SD’s brother for a business SAS Financial Services Limited (“SAS”). The suggestion by DD was he had lent £125,000 to SD in 1990 and a further £125,000 to SD’s brother.

Furthermore, DD submitted from 1985 he had lent £610,000 to SAS. DD did not accept that SAS had repaid this sum and that SD was liable under Jewish law. DD also said it was reasonable to infer that SD had received such sums for personal benefit.

DD was historically wealthy but lost assets in the financial crisis in 2007/8. Between 2007 and 2020 SD provided £170,000 odd to DD. DD sought further support from SD on poverty grounds.

Beth Din Arbitration

In 2013 the Beth Din of the Federation of Synagogues (“BD”) was approached for a resolution. The parties agreed to an informal ruling by a judge. The judge at the BD said children have to support an impecunious father according to their incomes. 

The judge at the BD found certain of the monies from DD were loans not gifts. He also made other findings that did not resolve the family dispute and hearings at the BD resulted.

On 6 November 2018, the Tribunal at the BD provided an interim decision that SD pays £125,000 to DD or for SD to support DD at a higher rate than previously calculated. On 29 January 2019, the Tribunal required SD to pay DD £550 a week until the full sum of £125,000 had been paid.

After further correspondence, SD’s lawyers highlighted the right to apply under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on matters of jurisdiction. It also repeatedly raised the matter of limitation.

A final award was dated 5 August 2022 concerning SD and DD and found that SD was liable to DD in the sum of £100,000 odd.

What The Court Said

The Court considering the challenge by SD said:

This history establishes that, while SD contended that the reformulated claims were in reality against SAS and not himself personally (a point already addressed), he did not object as soon as possible to the Tribunal exercising substantive jurisdiction over the reformulated claims on the separate basis that they did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. He is therefore prevented by reason of s. 31(2) and s. 73 of the 1996 Act from objecting to its substantive jurisdiction.

…

SD also contends that there has been substantial injustice because the Tribunal ought to have concluded that SAS is the proper party to the claim. I am unable to accept this. This is a repackaging of the points addressed above. It is in reality a complaint about the decision reached, rather than one about the procedure adopted by the Tribunal.

SD also submitted that there was a serious irregularity because the Tribunal had not addressed the Out of Scope Defence. Counsel for SD repeated the same arguments as SD had made in relation to the Non-Party Defence. For the reasons already given, I do not think that there is anything in this challenge. Indeed, since I have decided that the Tribunal had substantive jurisdiction, this challenge cannot succeed – there is no realistic basis for supposing that the Tribunal might have reached a different view on this point.

However, the Court did find that a failure of the Tribunal to address the Limitation Defence was a serious irregularity because you cannot contract out of Section 13 of the Arbitration Act 1996:

…The history shows that SD raised limitation as a defence. He repeatedly referred to s. 13 of the 1996 Act and the 1980 Act. AD addressed the arguments in his documents. It was also clear that SD was advancing the Limitation Defence as an answer to the repayment claim in its various reformulated incarnations. The defence became one of the key issues in the dispute. Nothing at all was said in the award about the Limitation Defence. There was nothing to suggest that the Tribunal considered it. I am satisfied that the Tribunal failed to deal with the issue in the sense provided for in s. 68(2)(d).

…

There was however a serious irregularity in the award within the meaning of s. 68(2)(d) in respect of the Limitation Defence.