The Ali Abdullah Alesayi Will Establishment v Hashim Ali Alesayi

Proceedings brought in England to administer the assets of a deceased person are representative proceedings. A foreign representative cannot sue in that capacity without an English grant of representation. The question whether proceedings concern administration or succession is characterised under English law as the lex fori. A claim is personal only where the claimant has an absolute entitlement to the relevant property and sues for its own benefit. The claimant’s legal form does not alter that analysis. Proceedings commenced without the required grant are an incurable nullity and cannot be saved by adding or substituting a claimant after commencement.

The claimant, a Saudi Arabian legal entity established after the deceased’s death, brought proceedings against the defendant, one of the deceased’s sons. It alleged rights under an oral holding agreement, breaches of guardianship duties, unjust enrichment and entitlement to assets said to form part of the deceased’s estate under a Saudi Arabian proof of will.

No person had obtained an English grant of representation. The court considered whether the claims were personal claims by the claimant or representative claims brought for the administration and distribution of the deceased’s estate, and whether the proceedings could be continued or cured by substitution.

1. The claim was struck out in its entirety. Each cause of action sought remedies for the benefit of persons entitled under the deceased’s estate, rather than for the claimant’s personal benefit. The proceedings were therefore brought in a representative capacity and were part of the administration of the estate.
2. The distinction between administration and succession is characterised under English law, as the lex fori. Administration is governed by the law of the place where administration occurs. A foreign grant or authority has no operation in England without an English grant of representation.
3. The claims for breach of guardianship duties and unjust enrichment plainly concerned administration. They sought recovery, information and transfer of estate assets for subsequent distribution, and were not brought by a person claiming absolute beneficial entitlement.
4. The contractual claim under the alleged Holding and Transfer Agreement was also administrative. Its pleaded purpose was to transfer estate assets to the claimant so that they could be administered under the proof of will. The fact that the claimant was a corporate entity, or that no other English estate asset was identified, did not make the claim personal.
5. The declarations concerning Topaz, Nebulae and Bennington likewise sought to establish control of estate assets for administration and distribution. They were not personal claims.
6. The claimant was not appointed executor by the tenor of the proof of will and could therefore obtain only letters of administration. No such grant had been obtained. The proceedings were consequently an incurable nullity. They could not be cured by adding or substituting Mr Mohammed as claimant under CPR r 19.2(2) or r 19.2(4).