Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 241–254 | Cite as

Getting a `Get' – the Limits of Law's Authority? N. v. N. (Jurisdiction: Pre-Nuptial Agreement) [1999] 2 F.L.R. 745

  • Adrienne Barnett


This note examines the decision of the Family Division of the High Court in N. v. N. (Jurisdiction: Pre-Nuptial Agreement) in which, in the context of Jewish divorce proceedings, the Court found that it had no jurisdiction to order a husband, by specific performance of a marriage agreement, to go through the procedure to obtain a ‘get’ (a hand-written bill of divorcement) allowing his wife to remarry. First, discussion of the case is contextualised broadly within the debate on the (de)merits of employing legal means in order to redress social wrongs. Secondly, adopting a theoretical perspective upon the difficulties involved in using law to achieve social change, the note goes on to examine more specifically why women from minority cultures may choose to go to the law of the dominant culture in order to obtain relief.

contact order divorce `get' Jewish Law jurisdiction pre-nuptial agreement social systems theory specific performance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Breitowitz, Rabbi Y., The Plight of the Agunah and a Summary of Possible Solutions (, 1999).Google Scholar
  2. Freeman, M., “Law, Religion and The State: The Get Revisited”, in Families Across Frontiers, ed. N. Lowe and G. Douglas (Netherlands: Kluwer, 1996), 361-383.Google Scholar
  3. Freeman, M., “Divorce: 'The Dayanim Must Act' ”, Jewish Chronicle (17 December 1999).Google Scholar
  4. Katzenberg, S. and Rosenblatt, J., “Getting the 'Get'”, Family Law V/29 (1999), 165-167.Google Scholar
  5. Khan, V.S., “The Role of the Culture of Dominance in Structuring the Experience of Ethnic Minorities”, in 'Race' in Britain, ed. C. Husband (London: Hutchinson, 1982).Google Scholar
  6. King, M., “The 'Truth' about Autopoiesis”, Journal of Law and Society V/20 (1993), 1-19.Google Scholar
  7. King, M. and Schutz, A., “The Ambitious Modesty of Niklas Luhmann”, Journal of Law and Society V/21 (1994), 261-287.Google Scholar
  8. King, M., ed., God's Law versus State Law (London: Grey Seal, 1995).Google Scholar
  9. King, M., A Better World for Children (London: Routledge, 1997).Google Scholar
  10. Lew, J., “Jewish Divorces”, New Law Journal (1973), 829-830.Google Scholar
  11. Luhmann, N., “Differentiation in Society”, Canadian Journal of Sociology V/2 (1977), 29-54.Google Scholar
  12. Luhmann, N., “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems”, in Socio-cybernetic Paradoxes: Observation, Control and Evolution of Self-Steering Systems, ed. F. Geyer and J. Van der Zouwen (London: Beverly Hills, 1986).Google Scholar
  13. Luhmann, N., Ecological Communications (Oxford; Polity Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  14. Luhmann, N., “Law as a Social System”, Northwestern University Law Review V/83 (1989), 136-150.Google Scholar
  15. Maidment, S., “The Legal Effect of Religious Divorces”, The Modern Law Review V/37 (1974), 611-626.Google Scholar
  16. Manji, A.S., “Imagining Women's 'Legal World': Towards a Feminist Theory of Legal Pluralism in Africa”, Social and Legal Studies V/8 (1999), 435-455.Google Scholar
  17. Poulter, S., English Law and Ethnic Minority Customs (London: Butterworths, 1986), 98-126.Google Scholar
  18. Priban, J., “Beyond Procedural Legitimation: Legality and its 'Infictions'”, Journal of Law and Society V/24 (1997), 331-349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smart, C., Feminism and the Power of Law (London: Routledge, 1989).Google Scholar
  20. Wilke, H., “The Autopoietic Theory of Law: Autonomy of Law and Contextual Transfer”, in Controversies about Law' Ontology, ed. P. Amselek and N. MacCormick (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrienne Barnett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Law, Faculty of Social SciencesBrunel UniversityUxbridge, MiddlesexUK

Personalised recommendations