Antonio Sidoli & Anor v Dante Sidoli & Anor

[2025] EWHC 1425 (Ch)

Case details

Case citations
[2025] EWHC 1425 (Ch)
Court
High Court (Business and Property Courts)
Judgment date
10 June 2025
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Private international law Civil procedure Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
Keywords
Foreign judgments Reciprocal enforcement Succession Administration of estates Immoveable property Jurisdiction Submission to jurisdiction Public policy Italian judgment
Outcome
application for registration dismissed; registration alternatively set aside
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Judgments determining succession to an estate are generally outside the scope of registration under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. The court must identify the overall subject matter of the foreign claim, rather than isolate an individual asset within it. A succession claim is not ordinarily an action in personam, and the statutory reference to administration of estates may extend to succession matters. English conflict-of-laws principles also restrict recognition of foreign determinations concerning succession to English immoveable property or the movable assets of an English-domiciled person. Public policy is engaged only by a fundamental defect, not merely because the foreign court was slow or reached conclusions with which an English court might disagree.

Factual background

The claim concerned registration under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 of an Italian judgment ordering the defendants to pay €381,796.31 plus interest. The Italian proceedings concerned the estate of Davide Sidoli and resulted in findings that the claimants were his children and legitimate heirs. The Italian Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal.

Registration was initially ordered, but that order was subsequently cancelled. The defendants challenged registration on jurisdictional, statutory and public-policy grounds. The central issues were whether the Italian claim concerned English immoveable property, whether it was an action in personam or concerned succession or administration of an estate, whether the defendants had submitted to the Italian jurisdiction, and whether enforcement would offend public policy.

Held

The application for registration was dismissed. The court held that the judgment was otherwise registrable under section 2(1), but registration had to be set aside under section 4 because the Italian court lacked jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case.

  1. Registrability. The Italian judgment was final and conclusive, ordered payment of a fixed sum, was given by courts recognised under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments (Italy) Order 1973, and had not been satisfied. The fact that enforcement in Italy might be futile did not mean that the judgment could not be enforced there.
  2. Subject matter. Applying the characterisation approach discussed in Macmillan v Bishopsgate [1996] 1 WLR 387, the court identified the overall subject matter as succession to Davide’s estate. It rejected the argument that registration necessarily failed because the estate included 3 Broadfield Avenue, an English immoveable asset.
  3. Succession and actions in personam. The statutory exclusion of proceedings concerning administration of estates was given a broad meaning which probably included succession. In any event, a claim whose subject matter was succession to an estate was not an action in personam for the purposes of the Act. The Italian court therefore lacked jurisdiction under English principles over succession to Davide’s movable assets, given his English domicile, and over succession to the English immoveable property.
  4. Submission. The issue did not arise. Had the claim been an action in personam, however, the defendants’ appeal on the merits, after disputing jurisdiction, would have amounted to clear submission to the Italian jurisdiction. The approach in Winkler v Shamoon [2016] EWHC 217 was applied.
  5. Public policy. The delay in the Italian proceedings did not establish a manifest breach of a fundamental rule of law. Nor did alleged errors concerning jurisdiction, applicable law, limitation or DNA evidence make the judgment irrational. Registration was therefore refused, alternatively set aside, and the application was dismissed. Time for filing an appellant’s notice was extended to 21 days after the consequential-hearing date.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

Not an appeal. The judgment concerned a first-instance application to register, or set aside registration of, an Italian judgment. An appeal from the Italian judgment had previously been dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Bologna.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.