Djanogly v Djanogly & Ors [2025] EWHC 61 (Ch) (17 January 2025)

Djanogly v Djanogly & Ors [2025] EWHC 61 (Ch) (17 January 2025)

The Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the claim for repayment of funds injected into SAS because the claim was framed and pursued as a personal claim against SD, not against SAS as a company. The claim did not fall outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, which was broadly drafted to include compliance with the Piskei Din and related issues. The limitation defence failed because the relevant claims were not shown to be time-barred on the evidence and the Tribunal was entitled to reach its conclusion on the facts. There was no serious irregularity under s. 68, and the requirements for leave to appeal under s. 69 were not met.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 61 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Rabbi Saul Djanogly; First Defendant: Mr David Djanogly; Second Defendant: Mr Avrom Djanogly; Third Defendant: Dayan Dovid Dunner; Fourth Defendant: Dayan Dovid Cohn; Fifth Defendant: Dayan Mordechai Eisner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (challenge to Award) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 67, 68, 69, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Limitation Act 1980, Non Party Claims in Arbitration, Scope of Arbitration Agreement, Serious Irregularity, Application of Limitation Periods in Arbitration
Arbitration Contract Law Company Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Act 1996 Sections 67, 68, 69 Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Limitation Act 1980 Non Party Claims in Arbitration +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rabbi Saul Djanogly

Claimant

Mr David Djanogly

First Defendant

Mr Avrom Djanogly

Second Defendant

Dayan Dovid Dunner

Third Defendant

Dayan Dovid Cohn

Fourth Defendant

Dayan Mordechai Eisner

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (challenge to Award) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for repayment of funds injected into SAS Financial Services is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the claim fell outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as a claim against a non-party to the arbitration agreement
  3. 3 Whether the claim fell outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as it fell outside the ad hoc arbitration agreement and reference to arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the claim for repayment of funds injected into SAS because the claim was framed and pursued as a personal claim against SD, not against SAS as a company. The claim did not fall outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, which was broadly drafted to include compliance with the Piskei Din and related issues. The limitation defence failed because the relevant claims were not shown to be time-barred on the evidence and the Tribunal was entitled to reach its conclusion on the facts. There was no serious irregularity under s. 68, and the requirements for leave to appeal under s. 69 were not met.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's challenges under sections 67, 68, and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 are dismissed.
  • The award of the Tribunal dated 5 August 2022 stands.