...Conventions choice controlling law to that of countries, thus limiting choice to English versus Swiss law but that Agreement might be read as incorporating some principles of Jewish law as terms of contract

A judgment handed down by a Queens Bench judge dealt with an application for summary judgment brought by the Claimants. The Claimants are the son (Israel) and grandson (Samuel) of the late Rabbi Joseph Halpern and his wife Frieda, also deceased. This is an appeal from that judgment.

Their claim was to enforce a Compromise Agreement which they allege to have been reached between Israel and Samuel (who at all material times acted for his father Israel) and the Defendants (four other sons and a daughter of Joseph and Frieda). The Compromise was of an arbitration before a Beth Din composed of three Rabbis which for the most part was taking place in Zurich. The parties had intended that the arbitration was to settle issues, which had arisen after the deaths of Joseph and Frieda, between Israel (the first claimant) and his siblings relating to what he deemed to be his due inheritance.

The first three Defendants (Mordecai, David and Jacob) were the executors of both estates. The dispute, however, was not simply about the distribution of the estates (valued for Probate, as we were shown but the judge was not, in the case of Joseph at L309,945 and in the case of Frieda at L210,000). More importantly, it was to decide whether there were other assets which the Defendants should take account of in assessing what should be Israel's fair share.

Mordecai made the Compromise on behalf of himself, his two executor brothers, another brother, Aaron, and his sister, Esther, as party A, and Israel and his son Samuel who had represented Samuel during the arbitration as party B. Mordecai drafted the agreement in Hebrew and an agreed upon translation was entered into the record. Although Claimants named all those listed as party A as Defendants, service was had only upon the three executor brothers.

As a ground for setting aside the Compromise, the executor brothers rely on the fact that a different Beth Din sitting in New York awarded the sister, Esther (as against the executor brothers) the whole of the estate which apparently involves several million pounds. The main area of dispute thus relates to whatever assets lie outside the estate as valued for probate.

That is further confirmed by the fact that, under the Compromise, if it be valid, Israel was to receive L2.4 million. The appellate court is concerned as to how the parties could square the figures at which the estates had been valued for probate with these figures, and especially with the L4M said to be the value of the estate the...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.