Rita Alay Libera Del Curto v Julian Enrique Del Curto & Anor

Registration under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 depends on applying the statutory scheme itself. A foreign judgment may be a money judgment where the sum payable can be calculated by simple arithmetic from the judgment and documents expressly adopted by it. An order requiring restitution of assets, or their monetary equivalent, may create a personal obligation and therefore constitute an action in personam. The fact that the underlying dispute concerns succession or assets formerly situated abroad does not by itself make the judgment one in rem or bring it within the exclusion for administration of estates. The statutory exclusion concerning immovable property applies only where that property is the subject matter of the proceedings.

The applicant obtained an Italian judgment requiring the respondents to make restitution of her share of their deceased father’s estate, or pay its monetary equivalent, together with interest, costs and compensation. The judgment quantified the estate by adopting a court-appointed valuation report.

Master Eastman registered the judgment in England under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. The first respondent applied to set aside registration on mandatory grounds under section 4(1), arguing that the judgment was not for a sum of money, was not given in an action in personam, concerned the administration of an estate, and related to immovable property outside Italy.

The central issues were whether the judgment was a registrable money judgment and whether the Italian court was deemed to have jurisdiction under the Act.

1. Application dismissed. The registration order was not set aside. The court applied the statutory terms of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, rather than treating the common law or the United Kingdom–Italy Convention as controlling. The Convention could be considered as part of the background, but it could not alter domestic law.
2. The Italian judgment was one under which a sum of money was payable. It required restitution of assets or their monetary equivalent. The evidence showed that the assets had been sold or dissipated, so satisfaction could only occur by payment. The principal sum was ascertainable by applying the 2/9ths entitlement to the valuation report, which the Italian judgment expressly and fully adopted. A precise sum need not appear on the face of the judgment if it can be established by simple arithmetic, following Beatty v Beatty [1924] 1 KB 807.
3. The judgment was in personam. A claim requiring particular defendants to return assets or pay their value does not automatically become an action in rem. The Italian proceedings determined rights and obligations between the parties and did not purport to bind the world or third parties. The reasoning in Webb v Webb [1991] 1 WLR 1410 and Akers v Samba Financial Group [2017] UKSC 6 supported the distinction between personal remedies and proprietary rights.
4. The proceedings were not excluded by section 11(2). They concerned the applicant’s personal entitlement and restitution, rather than the administration of the deceased’s estate. Nor did section 4(3)(a) apply. The foreign proceedings did not determine title to, or possession of, particular immovable property in Chile; the asset list was used only to quantify a monetary liability.

Master Eastman made the registration order on 22 December 2022. The High Court determined the first respondent’s application to set that order aside and declined to do so.