AI v MT: FD 30 Jan 2013

The parties had asked the court to apply rabbinical law in resolving their matrimonial proceedings, applying by consent the result of a rabbinical arbitration.
Held: The court could not accept an ouster of its jurisdiction over children of the marriage. It could however in principle endorse a process of non-binding arbitration, and decided accordingly.


Baker J


[2013] EWHC 100 (Fam)




Family Procedure Rules 2010


England and Wales


CitedHyman v Hyman HL 1929
The husband had left the wife for another woman. The parties had entered into a deed of separation under which the husband had paid two lump sums and agreed to make weekly payments of 20 pounds for the life of the wife. The deed included a covenant . .
CitedRe J (A Child), Re (Child returned abroad: Convention Rights); (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) HL 16-Jun-2005
The parents had married under shariah law. They left the US to return to the father’s home country Saudi Arabia. They parted, and the mother brought their son to England against the father’s wishes and in breach of an agreement. The father sought . .
CitedAl-Khatib v Masry and others CA 5-Oct-2004
The parties had been involved in protracted and bitter family disputes. After a previous appeal they had been invited to refer their disputes to mediation.
Held: At that time, mediation within the Appeal Court was managed by commercial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.470676