An unemployed Oxford graduate has had a landmark authorized bid to pressure his ‘enormously rich’ dad and mom to pay him ‘upkeep’ for all times thrown out by high judges.

Faiz Siddiqui, 41, who educated as a lawyer with a high authorized agency, says he’s utterly depending on his aged mom and father.

For years they’ve given him handouts and put him up hire free in a £1million flat they personal close to Hyde Park.

However after a household falling-out, his ‘long-suffering’ dad and mom, who stay in Dubai, reduce their assist.

Mr Siddiqui – backed by high human rights legal professionals – sued his dad and mom in a first-of-its-kind take a look at case within the UK.

However now judges within the Courtroom of Enchantment have thrown out his declare, saying that married dad and mom have ‘no authorized responsibility to assist their grownup youngsters’. 

Faiz Siddiqui (pictured in 2017) , 41, who trained as a lawyer with a top legal firm, says he is completely dependent on his elderly mother and father

Faiz Siddiqui (pictured in 2017) , 41, who educated as a lawyer with a high authorized agency, says he’s utterly depending on his aged mom and father

What’s a take a look at case? 

A take a look at case is a authorized problem used to check a definition of legislation with disputed that means and or intent.

Exams circumstances are full authorized challenges and the phrase ‘take a look at’ is utilized in relation to the very fact the circumstances exams a component of legislation.

They’re essential circumstances, as a result of the outcomes of take a look at hearings have significance not just for the individual bringing the case however for a lot of others.

That’s as a result of the outcomes set precedents which can be utilized in future hearings.

Due to this fact take a look at circumstances have a big wider public curiosity past these straight concerned in it.

Take a look at circumstances search to problem the lawfulness of laws or how the laws is being utilized, acquire a ruling on an untested level of legislation, or overturn or affirm a prevailing judicial interpretation.


The Courtroom of Enchantment heard Mr Siddiqui has a level in historical past from Oxford’s Brasenose Faculty and a masters in taxation, and is certified as a solicitor.

He has practised at high legislation companies together with Burgess Salmon and Discipline Fisher Waterhouse.

Mr Siddiqui additionally labored at Ernst & Younger as a tax advisor, however has been unemployed since 2011.

For 20 years, he has been put up by his wealthy dad and mom of their residence close to Hyde Park. They’ve additionally given handouts to cowl his payments and different outgoings.

However the court docket heard how his relationship, notably together with his father, ‘deteriorated’ lately.

The monetary assist they’re keen to offer Mr Siddiqui has ‘considerably lowered,’ the court docket heard.

Mr Siddiqui, who went to a Berkshire grammar college, claimed that his dad and mom’ handouts ‘nurtured his dependency’ on them for 20 years.

He claimed that, in reducing their monetary assist, they left the state to take care of the results.

He final 12 months launched a case in opposition to his dad and mom, claiming upkeep. However he noticed it kicked out by the nation’s senior household court docket choose, Sir James Munby.

The take a look at case hen went to the Courtroom of Enchantment for the nation’s high judges to resolve.

His barrister Hugh Southey QC argued that Mr Siddiqui is entitled to use for upkeep underneath the 1989 Kids’s Act as a result of he’s a ‘weak’ grownup on account of well being points.

In 2018, Mr Siddiqui, who studied at Brasenose College (pictured), Oxford, tried to sue his former university

In 2018, Mr Siddiqui, who studied at Brasenose Faculty (pictured), Oxford, tried to sue his former college 

And though the act says an grownup little one can not make a declare if their dad and mom are nonetheless dwelling collectively, Mr Southey mentioned that will discriminate in opposition to the youngsters of nonetheless married dad and mom like Mr Siddiqui and so is a human rights violation.

Nonetheless, Mr Siddiqui’s wealthy mom and father Rakshanda, 69, and Javed Siddiqui, 71, fought his declare.

They mentioned they didn’t wish to give him any greater than the £400-a-week they have been presently offering.

Their barrister Justin Warshaw QC argued that permitting the declare to proceed would end result within the floodgates being opened to 1000’s of grownup youngsters who’re both weak or planning additional training and need money from their dad and mom.

‘What Mr Siddiqui seeks is to foist a relationship of monetary dependency on dad and mom who don’t want that relationship to proceed,’ he mentioned.

‘These long-suffering dad and mom have reached their very own view of what’s appropriate provision for his or her troublesome, demanding and pertinacious 41-year-old son.

‘Their extremely certified son lives hire free of their £1m two-bedroom London residence, a stone’s throw from Hyde Park.

‘They pay for his utilities and provides him £1,500 or so every month. That’s their selection. The state can not and shouldn’t be interfering in that call.

‘It will basically alter the connection between the state and cohabiting/married dad and mom, enabling all adults to litigate in opposition to their dad and mom, whether or not their dad and mom are cohabiting or not, the place an grownup asserts that they’re considering increased training or the place there are particular circumstances.’

‘Parliament – and Mr Siddiqui’s dad and mom – don’t take into account {that a} little one, notably an grownup little one, ought to be capable of litigate in opposition to their dad and mom the place there’s a dispute between little one and guardian as to the extent of assist provided by the dad and mom.

‘Mr Siddiqui, wrongly, assumes that he’s entitled to provision from his dad and mom as of proper. That is flawed.’

He added: ‘His skeleton argument is plagued by emotive references to “little one and “youngsters”. 

‘To be clear, it is a man in his 40s, looking for monetary assist from his aged dad and mom – 69 and 71 years outdated, respectively.

‘It goes with out saying that the dad and mom are devastated that they’re being put by means of this ordeal by their son and that they’re being put to such monumental expense, notably when set in opposition to their historic and ongoing generosity in direction of him.’

The Court of Appeal (pictured: The Royal Courts of Justice in London) heard Mr Siddiqui has a degree in history from Oxford's Brasenose College and a masters in taxation, and is qualified as a solicitor

The Courtroom of Enchantment (pictured: The Royal Courts of Justice in London) heard Mr Siddiqui has a level in historical past from Oxford’s Brasenose Faculty and a masters in taxation, and is certified as a solicitor

Backing that argument and throwing out the son’s case, Lord Justice Underhill mentioned: ‘It’s the thought-about coverage of Parliament that folks might solely be ordered to offer assist to their grownup youngsters within the context of relationship breakdown and that there ought to be no common discretionary energy to require the supply of such assist exterior that context.’

He mentioned it was ‘plainly Parliament’s view, reflecting understood social norms, that – regardless of the ethical place is perhaps – dad and mom ought to be underneath no authorized responsibility to assist their grownup youngsters, nonetheless grave their want. Judgements of that sort are peculiarly a matter for Parliament.’

He mentioned Mr Southey, for the son, had submitted that society had ‘moved on’ in its understanding of the connection between dad and mom and their grownup youngsters, however had provided ‘no proof’ to assist the declare.

He continued: ‘Even when there have been some foundation for it – which I doubt – I don’t take into account it remotely controversial that attitudes have modified in a means that will require us to carry that it was manifestly with out cheap basis that grownup youngsters ought to be unable to assert monetary assist from their dad and mom exterior the parameters of that laws.’

Agreeing and dismissing the son’s enchantment, Lord Justice Moylan mentioned the son’s case, if profitable, would represent a ‘very appreciable invasion of his dad and mom’ proper to respect for his or her non-public and household life’, underneath Article 8 of the European Conference on Human Rights.

‘The creation of a proper for all youngsters to deliver claims in opposition to their dad and mom, if there are ‘particular circumstances’, could be a really novel use of Article 8 and a use which is unsupported by any authority or precept,’ he mentioned.

‘The appellant just isn’t handled in a different way due to his well being standing or incapacity. They don’t seem to be related options within the context of this case.’

Lord Justice Dingemans agreed with the judgments of the opposite two judges and Mr Siddiqui’s enchantment was rejected.