Schwebel v Wolf Schwebel [2010] EWHC 3280 (TCC) (16 December 2010)

Schwebel v Wolf Schwebel [2010] EWHC 3280 (TCC) (16 December 2010)

No appeal lies under Section 69 because the award was made under Jewish law, not English law. No serious irregularity under Section 68 was established, as the Beth Din conducted the proceedings fairly, addressed the essential issues, and there was no evidence of procedural unfairness or injustice.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3280 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Aaron Yitzchok Schwebel; Defendant: Wolf Schwebel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal and Challenge for Serious Irregularity
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeal Under Arbitration Act 1996 Section 69, Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 Section 68, Inheritance Disputes, Trusts Over Property, Recognition of Religious Arbitration Awards
Arbitration Trusts and Estates Property Law Appeal Under Arbitration Act 1996 Section 69 Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 Section 68 Inheritance Disputes Trusts Over Property Recognition of Religious Arbitration Awards

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aaron Yitzchok Schwebel

Claimant

Wolf Schwebel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal and Challenge for Serious Irregularity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 should be granted on a question of law arising from an award applying Jewish law
  2. 2 Whether there was a serious irregularity under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in the conduct of the Beth Din arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

No appeal lies under Section 69 because the award was made under Jewish law, not English law. No serious irregularity under Section 68 was established, as the Beth Din conducted the proceedings fairly, addressed the essential issues, and there was no evidence of procedural unfairness or injustice.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No permission to appeal under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  • No relief under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996