The Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregation has called on a judge to withdraw comments about housing benefit fraud among a Chasidic group in Stamford Hill.

Murray Rosen QC, sitting as a deputy judge in the Chancery division of the High Court, voiced concern at evidence given to him that an arrangement to fraudulently obtain housing benefit was common.

In a statement, a spokesman for the UOHC responded: “We are disappointed to read of Mr Rosen’s reported remarks about our community, which are based on a single testimony. The Rabbinate places the utmost importance on upholding the law of the land and does not condone any activity which runs contrary to it.”

The spokesman added:  “On this basis, we question the basis of his offensive generalisation. We are unaware of any other such cases and would ask Mr Rosen QC to withdraw his comments as a matter of urgency and issue a fulsome apology.”

The allegations of benefit fraud were made during a case brought by a former member of the Stamford Hill Charedi community, Miriam Kliers, against her ex-husband Shlomo Kliers and one of her brothers Mordechai Schmerler.

Mrs Kliers and Mr Kliers - described as members of a particular Chasidic group -  had put money towards the cost of buying a home in Stamford Hill. But the house was registered in the name of Mr Schmerler. Since home owners may not claim housing benefit to put towards a mortgage, they instead became his tenants and claimed benefit to pay him rent.

Mr Rosen rejected Mr Schmerler’s claim he had used his own money to take out the mortgage and ruled that Mrs Kliers was entitled to a 75 per cent share of the house.

He accepted her evidence that she had come under "undue influence" to agree to putting the house in her brother's name. The arrangement, she clained, had been made at the direction, among others, of Mr Kliers’s “Grand Rabbi” in Jerusalem, their London rabbi and a community adviser.

In his judgment which was delivered at the end of April but has recently come to light, Mr Rosen declared, “The fathers, both familial and community, considered that to be the way to achieve the purpose and the borrowing, and the receipt of publicly funded benefits.

“Why senior persons should consider that to be proper, it is not for me to say, but there can be no doubt that it is an illegal purpose and contrary to our law and one would have thought to the relevant religious law as well, but as to that, fortunately, I am no authority whatsoever.”

He also observed, “To be confronted by a plan of this nature which, on the evidence, is common practice amongst esteemed and respected religious and community leaders, is one which must cause very great concern to any court.”

But he said there was no need for the court to draw a conclusion on Mrs Kliers's evidence that the arrangmement was common within "this particular community".

Mrs Kliers has undertaken to repay any money wrongly obtained to the relevant authorities from the proceeds of the house.