When overseas wins concerning succession cannot be registered in the UK
The High Court refused to register an Italian decision concerning a disputed legacy in an English will.
Background:
The case concerns the estate of Davide Sidoli, who died in September 2006. Davide left an English will dated August 2006, naming his brother and sister-in-law (the defendants) as beneficiaries and explicitly disinheriting his former wife's sons, Andrea and Antonio Sidoli (the claimants), based on his belief that he was not their natural father.
The claimants initiated proceedings in Italy in 2012. The Italian Court of Piacenza, in a judgement of 2020, found the claimants to be Davide's children and set aside his will on the grounds that Davide was mistaken in his belief. The Italian Court declared Andrea and Antonio Sidoli as legitimate heirs, entitling each to half of the estate, and ordered the defendants to pay them €381,796.31 plus interest. The defendants' appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Bologna in December 2022.
The claimants sought to register this Italian judgement in the High Court of Justice in England under the Foreign Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. While Master Stevens initially ordered registration, this order was later set aside, leading to the current hearing before Deputy Master Dew.
Decision:
The High Court refused to register the Italian judgement based on the interpretation of the 1933 Act. He concluded that judgements arising from succession claims are generally not registrable under this Act.
The Court rejected the assertion that the Italian judgement related to a claim regarding immoveable property, as, at the heart of the proceedings, was the succession to Davide’s estate. However, the Judge mentioned that “the common law conflicts of laws rules in England and Wales are that the English Court applies English law to the succession of immoveable assets in this jurisdiction and to the worldwide moveable assets of those domiciled in this country. Accordingly, it did not recognise judgements which determine the succession of immovable assets in this jurisdiction or the moveable assets of those domiciled here. The 1933 Act was not intended to change the common law.” Section 11(2), which addresses the exclusion of matters concerning the administration of estates, is not exclusive of succession to estates. Deputy Master Dew interpreted "administration of estates" broadly to include succession matters, aligning with the historical context of English law and treaties related to foreign judgements, which often excluded succession.
He further determined that, in any event, a claim concerning the succession to an estate is fundamentally not an "action in personam". Such claims often have an in rem aspect, dealing with rights over property and status, rather than just personal obligations between parties.
Other arguments, such as the defendants' submission to Italian jurisdiction or public policy concerns regarding delay, were considered, but ultimately did not alter this fundamental conclusion.
Implications:
The most important outcome of this decision is the exclusion of succession from the 1933 Act. Even if the judgement concerns a sum of money, the 1933 Act is unlikely to be a viable route for enforcing foreign succession judgements in England. This case also clarifies an area left uncertain by the Del-Curto v Del-Curto case, which had suggested a different outcome, signalling a more restrictive approach to precisely what constitutes an "action in personam" under the Act.
The judgement also reiterated fundamental principles of English private international law regarding succession, notably that immoveable property is governed by the law of the country where it is situated, while moveable property is governed by the law of the deceased's domicile at death.
It is important to meticulously analyse the true "subject matter of the action" in foreign proceedings. Even if a foreign judgement results in a monetary order, if the underlying cause of action is fundamentally about succession, it is likely to fall outside the 1933 Act's scope for enforcement.