The Republic of Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) & Ors

English jurisdictional restrictions concerning the administration of estates do not prevent proceedings against heirs personally where the law of the deceased’s domicile transfers assets and liabilities directly to them and recognises no intervening estate or personal representative.

Heirs may be joined where the court must determine the deceased’s underlying liability and joinder is desirable to resolve all matters in dispute or a connected issue. For service out, the same jurisdictional gateways may apply to successors where the claim is legally the same claim. A foreign defendant may also be a necessary or proper party where the claims require one investigation or share a sufficient common thread. The English court may remain the clearly and distinctly most appropriate forum where refusing jurisdiction risks unenforceability, inconsistent judgments and duplicated litigation abroad.

Mozambique had brought proceedings against Mr Iskandar Safa. He died after trial but before judgment. His widow and sons were said, on evidence of Lebanese law, to be his heirs.

Mozambique applied to join them as defendants, amend its pleadings and serve the proceedings out of the jurisdiction. The Respondents argued that the issues concerned the administration and succession of Mr Safa’s estate, which should be dealt with in Lebanon, and that there was no sufficient basis for joinder or service out.

The central questions were whether the English court had jurisdiction to determine claims against the heirs, whether they were necessary or proper parties, whether the relevant jurisdictional gateways were satisfied, and whether England was clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum.

1. Jurisdiction and succession. The claims were not brought against the Respondents as foreign personal representatives. On the accepted evidence, Lebanese law recognised no estate or estate administration in the English sense. Assets and liabilities vested immediately in the heirs, subject to their respective shares and the possibility of disclaimer. The Respondents would therefore be sued in their personal capacity as heirs. The restriction concerning claims against foreign personal representatives did not apply.
2. The English court was completing its existing task of deciding the liability arising from Mr Safa’s conduct. It was not undertaking a comprehensive administration of his estate or determining the general liabilities of the estate. The reasoning applicable to assets, including Viegas v Cutrale, supported the conclusion that the approach should not differ for liabilities.
3. Joinder and amendment. There was plainly a serious issue to be tried, including an unresolved issue whether an uncrystallised tort liability could pass on death under Lebanese law. CPR, r.19.2(2) was satisfied under both limbs: joinder was desirable to resolve all matters in dispute and to resolve a connected issue. Amendment followed sensibly and served the overriding objective.
4. Service out. The claim against the heirs was legally the same claim as that against Mr Safa because they were successors to the liabilities alleged against him. The gateways relied upon therefore applied. Gateway 3.1(3) was also satisfied. The claims concerned one investigation and shared a sufficient common thread. The heirs were necessary and proper parties because the court was being asked to determine liability on the facts and matters underlying the original claim. The reasoning in The Public Institution for Social Security v Al-Wazzab was respectfully followed.
5. Forum. England was clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum in the particular circumstances. Continuing the proceedings would avoid leaving the trial unresolved, reduce the risk that a judgment would be unenforceable in Lebanon, and prevent inconsistent judgments and duplicated litigation. The court accordingly permitted joinder, amendment and service out, with ancillary matters to be addressed subsequently.