Bhatti v Bhatti & Anor

An agreement to refer a dispute to a religious tribunal may constitute a contract for arbitration under English law. An award arising from that agreement may be enforced as an arbitration award, even though the tribunal applied religious principles and its procedure was governed by religious rules.

A procedural irregularity does not necessarily deprive an arbitral tribunal of jurisdiction or make its award unenforceable. The court will assess whether the alleged irregularity has that legal effect. Evidence that enforcement has been suspended within the religious community does not establish that enforcement in the civil courts is suspended.

The claimant, as executor of the estate of Kabir Ahmad Bhatti, sought summary judgment to enforce an award concerning the beneficial ownership of five United Kingdom properties. The defendants had agreed in writing that the dispute would be decided by the Qadha Board of the UK Ahmadiyya Muslim Association by way of arbitration and that they would accept and act upon its decision.

The Qadha Board and its appellate bodies decided that the properties belonged to Kabir. The defendants argued that the award was unenforceable because the claim had been expanded from three properties to nine during the appellate process and because later correspondence showed that enforcement had been suspended by the community’s supreme head.

1. Summary judgment granted. The court held that there was no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim to enforce the award.
2. The written consent documents created a contract under English law to submit the property dispute to arbitration. The Qadha Board proceedings were in the nature of arbitration, and the award was to be treated in the same way as an award made by an arbitration conducted in England.
3. The expansion of the claim during the level-three appeal did not establish that the award was unenforceable. No relevant Qadha Board rule had been shown to have been breached. Even if there had been a breach, it was properly characterised as a procedural irregularity. Such an irregularity does not necessarily prevent enforcement of an award or deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction.
4. The evidence did not establish that the Jamaat or supreme head had directed that the award could not be enforced in the civil courts. The expert report impermissibly asserted facts without explaining the basis of the expert’s personal knowledge. The three letters, considered in context, gave permission to resolve the dispute in the civil courts and suspended enforcement by the community’s enforcement body pending that process.
5. The award therefore remained enforceable, and judgment was entered in the claimant’s favour on the summary judgment application.

The judgment describes appeals within the Ahmadiyya Qadha system from the Qadha Board to the Appeal Panel Qadha Board UK, the Murafia Aalia Rabwah and the Supreme Appeal Board. The Supreme Appeal Board dismissed the defendant’s appeal on 6 September 2007. No prior court judgment is stated.