Manetta v De Filippo

Where a foreign conservatory order concerns proceeds already placed under the control of another English court, the court considering adaptation should avoid duplicating or conflicting with that court’s case management and distribution jurisdiction. An adaptation order under Article 54 of the Recast Brussels Regulation and CPR 74.11 is unnecessary where the domestic court controlling the funds is able to determine the effect to be given to the foreign order. The court should consider the law applicable when distribution is decided, including any material change caused by the expiry of the Brexit transition period.

The applicant sought an order adapting for service in England an Italian freezing order concerning the net proceeds of sale of matrimonial property. The application had previously been refused, with liberty to restore it if compliance difficulties arose. When restored, evidence showed that NatWest Bank would not give effect to the Italian order without further measures.

In the meantime, the Central London County Court ordered that the sale proceeds be paid into court pending its decision on distribution. The issue was whether a further adaptation order by the High Court was necessary and whether the County Court would give effect to the Italian order.

1. Application refused at this stage. The court declined to make an adaptation order under Article 54 of the Recast Brussels Regulation and CPR 74.11.
2. The proceeds of sale, including the amount covered by the Italian order, were to be paid into court pursuant to the order of His Honour Judge Parfitt. They were therefore under the control of the County Court, which was best placed to determine any dispute about their distribution.
3. The Italian order was accepted to be conservatory only. On the law as it then stood, the County Court was likely to give effect to it so far as it went, having regard to Article 39 of the Recast Brussels Regulation concerning jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
4. The High Court’s intervention was consequently unnecessary. The County Court would determine the extent to which the Italian order required recognition in England when distribution of the proceeds came before it. That position might be affected by expiry of the Brexit transition period.
5. If it later appeared that only the High Court could entertain an adaptation application and its intervention remained necessary, the matter could be restored.

This was a first-instance application. The judgment records that the Central London County Court had earlier conducted litigation between the parties and, on 10 December 2020, ordered payment of the net sale proceeds into court pending distribution.