There are many articles available about the curious case involving Faiz Siddique suing his parents for an order requiring his parents to maintain him for life. The writer was particularly interested in seeing how this case was put to the Family Courts as it is potentially ground breaking to say the least. Unfortunately, the only available information at the time of drafting this article, is vague terms about it relating to a Human Rights argument as a result of Faiz Siddique being a ‘vulnerable adult’ with health issues.
Faiz Siddique legal action against his parents
Case background
A bit of background to this matter:
- Mr Siddique is the 41 year old son of a wealthy couple, who owned a property in London worth around £1 million;
- Mr Siddique lived in that property rent free and his parents paid all of his bills and provided him with a weekly allowance until he was cut off by his parents following an argument;
- Mr Siddique was trained at Oxford and obtained a 2:1 degree and he then trained and worked at a number of Magic Circle law firms but had not worked since 2011; and
- Mr Siddique has previously pursued a failed law suit against Oxford University, claiming that they failed him in their teaching and that the net result was that he missed out on a lucrative opportunity at a US law firm and/or on the opportunity to become a tax barrister.
In the judgment in Faiz Siddique’s case against Oxford University, dismissing Mr Siddique’s claim, Mr Justice Foskett confirmed:
“I recognise that this will come as a great disappointment to the Claimant given the investment of time and effort he has made to pursue it. As Dr Beckett and Dr Isaac agree, he does now possess a “firmly entrenched belief” that all his post-Oxford problems lie with what occurred there. I have been unable to accept that this is so. It is well recognised that claims based on alleged educational negligence are notoriously difficult to bring to a successful conclusion and I am sure he will have been advised of this.
“However, he has not lost the claim simply because it is the kind of claim that is generally a difficult claim to sustain. Although there were some problems with the delivery of the ISS course in the 1999/2000 academic year at Oxford, I have not been persuaded on the evidence that the manner of its delivery was negligently inadequate (thus constituting “simple operational negligence”) and, in any event, that it can be demonstrated to the requisite standard that the manner of its delivery that year caused his low mark in the gobbets paper, that this mark made a material difference to the level of his degree and that the level of his degree caused the various consequences he has relied upon, including his failure to get to Harvard or an equivalent American Law School and his failure thus far to sustain a successful career in the law. He has suffered intermittent bouts of severe depression over the years for which he is entitled to sympathy and understanding. However, I do not consider that they can be attributed to his degree result.”
Comment
Whilst the writer has been unable to locate the judgment in the case against Faiz Siddique’s parents, the only Human Right contained in the Human Rights Act that seems remotely relevant is the right to private and family life under Article 8, which confirms:
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”
It is, however, extremely difficult to see how this could be formulated into an argument that an entirely independent adult that has the capability of earning a very substantial amount of money working in London law firms should remain the responsibility of his parents. This is probably the reason why Mr Siddique has lost his claim at first instance. Faiz Siddique has, however, appealed the decision and it will be interesting to see what the outcome of that appeal is.
Although not directly related to this case, there is a statutory regime that does expressly provide for children to make a claim against their parents or rather their estate. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 confirms that even adult children of a deceased person are able to make a claim against their estate if reasonable financial provision has not been made for them. Interestingly, that statute does expressly mention any disability of an applicant as one of the factors that should be weighed in the balance as to what an applicant is entitled to from the estate. It is, however clear that, even in cases under the 1975 Act, it is difficult for adult children that have the capability of being self-sufficient to make a claim against the estate. It is, however, possible, and by way of example, you do not need to look very hard to find the leading case of Ilott, in which an estranged daughter of the deceased managed to obtain an order that she was entitled to sums from the deceased estate.
So in answer to the question posed as the title to this article: As a parent when does your responsibility to maintain your children end? Potentially after you have died!
How Nelsons can help
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in inheritance disputes.
Should you be affected by any of the matters set out in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
*This article comes with the warning that notwithstanding there being many an article about this case available, the first instance judgment is elusive and accordingly, unlike most blogs available from Nelsons, there is limited content from the judgment itself. The content of it is therefore reliant entirely on such articles and the writer takes no responsibility for any inaccuracies as a result.