Rabbi Saul Djanogly v David Djanogly & Ors

Rabbi Saul Djanogly v David Djanogly & Ors

The Tribunal failed to address the Limitation Defence, which was a key issue raised by SD. This constituted a serious irregularity under s. 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996, causing substantial injustice as the Tribunal might have reached a different conclusion had it addressed the defence. The Non Party and Out of Scope Defences failed as the claim was against SD personally and fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

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 / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Challenges under s. 67 and s. 68 (Non-Party and Out of Scope Defences) dismissed; s. 68 challenge (Limitation Defence) upheld.
Legal Topics
Arbitration Jurisdiction, Limitation of Actions, Family Financial Disputes, Jewish Law in Arbitration
Arbitration Contract Law Trusts and Estates Arbitration Jurisdiction Limitation of Actions Family Financial Disputes Jewish Law in Arbitration

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for repayment of funds injected into SAS Financial Services is time-barred
  2. 2 Whether the claim fell outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by reason of being 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 specific reference to arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal failed to address the Limitation Defence, which was a key issue raised by SD. This constituted a serious irregularity under s. 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996, causing substantial injustice as the Tribunal might have reached a different conclusion had it addressed the defence. The Non Party and Out of Scope Defences failed as the claim was against SD personally and fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Court Disposition

Challenges under s. 67 and s. 68 (Non-Party and Out of Scope Defences) dismissed; s. 68 challenge (Limitation Defence) upheld.

Orders

  • Relief to be addressed at a further hearing if not agreed.