Faiz Siddiqi, 41, an Oxford graduate, lost his appeal after suing his parents for £400 a week ($545), according to a November 2021 Daily Mail report.
Siddiqui and his lawyers alleged that his parents, Dubai residents Rakshanda and Javed Siddiqui, violated his human rights by refusing to provide for him in London. They went to court in 2020.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the case of James Munby Siddique, causing the 41-year-old to appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, the court dismissed his case a second time, and Siddiqui lost his appeal.
The 41-year-old man at the center of this unique legal battle attended Brasenoz College, Oxford and defended his law 2-1. Siddiqui worked for Burgess Salmon and Field Fisher Waterhouse, two leading law firms, and then as a tax consultant for Ernst & Young, one of the Big Four’s most established accounting firms.
But since 2011, Siddiqi has been jobless, relying on his parents to create a luxurious lifestyle. According to the Mail, he lives in a £1 million ($1.3 million) rented flat in London near Hyde Park. In addition, Siddiq’s family lawyer Justin Warsaw, citing the Mail, said that Siddiq’s parents paid for his maintenance and gave him about £1,500 ($2,000) a month.
Siddiqui’s parents, on the other hand, said he “grew up in his addiction” and that they left the state to support him by deducting his child support.
According to the Mail, Siddiq’s lawyer Hugh Southey said he was eligible to claim benefits under the Children’s Act 1989 because his client classified him as a “vulnerable” adult due to health issues.
The State Home Library described the move as “the joint responsibility of local authorities to ensure the well-being of children in need in the area by providing a variety of services to meet the needs of these children.”
It also states: “What action should be taken by local authorities if there is reason to suspect that a child in the area may be harmed or suffer significant damage.”
However, former head of family affairs James Munby called the case “unprecedented” and added that “the most seasoned family lawyers would not believe that the initial response is controversial.”
Siddiq’s parents and their lawyers agreed.
“Mr. Siddiqui aims to make parents financially dependent who don’t want to continue the relationship,” Warshaw said.
“Parents who have endured for a long time have come to the conclusion that it is right to give their 41-year-old son something that is difficult, tough and stubborn.”
The Court of Appeal’s Lord Justice Nicholas Underhill accepted Warsaw’s argument and dismissed Siddiqui’s claim.
“Parliamentary policy is that parents can order their adult children to support them only in the event of a divorce, and there should not be a general option to require such support outside of this situation,” Underhill said.
sued. According to the Mail, he sued Oxford University in 2018 after receiving a 2:1 ratio equal to the U.S. B average. According to Siddiqi and his lawyers, the assessment robbed him of a successful legal career and the opportunity to study at a prestigious U.S. university. . In addition, an Oxford graduate accused the university of “insufficient” grades. Siddiqi and his legal adviser calculated that a 2-1 valuation would have been worth £1 million ($1.3 million).
A Supreme Court judge dismissed the lawsuit, arguing that his 2-1 score was due to “insufficient preparation” and “lack of academic discipline” rather than poor university performance.
Siddiq’s latest trial is not only legally dubious; Apost.com readers also criticized the case of the 41-year-old man, with some criticizing Siddique and some blaming his parents.