Recent developments in the legal landscape suggest that compliance with an agreement to submit to Bais Din’s jurisdiction, specifically on the issue of Get, cannot be considered optional. This has been highlighted by a series of decisions recently released by the Appellate Division. These decisions tackle various aspects of these issues, from the when, where and how of enforcing such compliance, to the question of whether courts can impose Bais Din’s jurisdiction.
One noteworthy decision emanated from the case of Bierig-Kiejdan v. Kiejdan. In this case, Fox Rothschild LLP points out that the lower court was overruled by the higher court after the former had ordered the involved parties to resume arbitration. This was a distinct departure from the Appellate Division’s earlier ruling that a court cannot compel arbitration on a Get issue absent an agreement.
This spells out important implications for legal professionals, particularly those dealing with arbitration and related issues. As these series of decisions show, it is becoming more evident that there must be clear conformance to pre-existing agreements before any action can be compelled, especially when it comes to matters concerning Bais Din’s jurisdiction.
The constant evolving nature of these rulings commands the active understanding and adaptation of legal professionals. Acknowledging these shifts in legal precedents ensures the fair and just handling of cases relating to Bais Din’s jurisdiction on Get-related matters.