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

An heir alleged to have succeeded personally to a deceased defendant’s liabilities may be served outside the jurisdiction where the ordinary jurisdictional requirements are met. The territorial restriction on proceedings against foreign personal representatives concerns representative liability and does not extend to such a personal claim. A claim to establish succession in principle may retain the underlying claim’s jurisdictional character. Its limited scope matters. Under the necessary or proper party gateway, a real issue can remain after trial where further judicial acts of practical utility are required to complete judgment. Foreign inheritance law is a factor in forum selection. Its weight depends on the nature and complexity of the outstanding issues and the procedural context.

The Republic of Mozambique brought proceedings against Mr Iskandar Safa and companies in the Privinvest Group, which he had founded and controlled. It alleged that bribery of its officials had procured unsuitable and loss-making contracts. Mr Safa died after giving evidence at trial but before judgment. He was domiciled in Lebanon.

The trial judge reserved all questions arising from the death. His main judgment, [2024] EWHC 1957 (Comm), stated what the outcome against Mr Safa would have been had he survived. An order subsequently imposed liability on the companies, while the proceedings concerning Mr Safa remained unfinished.

By [2025] EWHC 1481 (Comm), the judge permitted the Republic to amend its claim, join Mr Safa’s widow and two sons, and serve them outside the jurisdiction. The Republic alleged that, under Lebanese law, they had automatically succeeded to his assets and liabilities, subject to limits based on their inherited shares and their value. The sons’ appeals were allowed by consent after their disclaimers of inheritance were confirmed in Lebanon. The widow’s appeal concerned joinder to bind her to the determination of her husband’s liability and to establish her own liability in principle as his successor.

Mrs Safa’s appeal was dismissed unanimously. The sons’ appeals had been allowed by consent. Miles LJ gave the leading judgment, with which Whipple and Males LJJ agreed.

1. Permission to serve outside the jurisdiction required a serious issue on the merits, a good arguable case within a jurisdictional gateway, and England and Wales to be clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum. The Enforcement Basis sought a declaration of the deceased’s liability binding on his heir. It differed from the Substantive Basis, which sought relief establishing the heir’s own liability. Pleading the deceased’s liability supplied a sufficient basis for the declaration. A pleading ordinarily need not explain why another defendant should be joined (paras 34–41, 53).

2. Under gateway (3), the existence of a real issue which it was reasonable to try required a nuanced assessment. The anchor claim was considered in isolation, and its practical utility mattered. An anchor defendant’s failure to defend was relevant but inconclusive. Here, despite the trial findings, further judicial acts were required to settle liability, interest and costs. Those acts had utility because a final judgment was required for enforcement. The deceased’s representative remained entitled to participate. The gateway required no particular level of participation by the newly joined defendant, who could also make submissions on the order (paras 55–64).

3. The territorial restriction on suing foreign personal representatives concerned their representative capacity and the supervision of foreign administration. On the uncontested Lebanese-law evidence, assets and liabilities passed immediately and automatically to heirs, without an administration process or personal representative. The widow was sued personally. The restriction therefore supplied no answer to the claim. The sequential distinction between administration and succession described in Viegas v Cutrale could not readily be applied to that system (paras 76–82).

4. The deceased’s underlying liability was an essential ingredient of the substantive claim against his widow. That supplied a sufficient common thread for gateway (3). There was also a good arguable case under the contract, tort and restitution gateways. Those gateways did not require the successor personally to have participated in the underlying conduct. These conclusions depended significantly on the limited relief sought: liability by succession in principle, without a specified payment, valuation of the inheritance or determination of creditors’ priorities (paras 83–99).

5. The forum decision was evaluative and disclosed no basis for appellate interference. The outstanding Lebanese-law questions were comparatively limited, expert evidence already existed, and the English court understood the underlying liability. Trying the succession issues elsewhere would duplicate proceedings and resources. Whether uncrystallised tort liability or liability arising from criminal conduct passed to an heir remained for determination. The judge’s conclusion that England was clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum stood (paras 100–116).

• Court of Appeal: [2026] EWCA Civ 1349 . Mrs Safa’s appeal against joinder, amendment and permission to serve outside the jurisdiction was dismissed. Her sons’ appeals were allowed by consent following confirmation of their disclaimers of inheritance.
• High Court, Commercial Court: [2025] EWHC 1481 (Comm) , Robin Knowles J, 16 June 2025. The Republic obtained permission to amend its pleading, join the widow and sons as heirs, and serve them outside the jurisdiction.
• High Court, Commercial Court: [2024] EWHC 1957 (Comm) , 29 July 2024. The main judgment stated the outcome that would have followed against Mr Safa had he survived, while reserving questions arising from his death. An order dated 23 December 2024 imposed monetary and indemnity liabilities on the Privinvest companies; no corresponding final order had been made against Mr Safa.