[If you do use the blog for research, practice submission or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.]
A note on Sidoli v Sidoli [2025] EWHC 1425 (Ch) in which Dew DM deals with a classic issue of characterisation aka qualification, namely whether the claim at issue is one in rem or one in succession.
[Note [15] an interesting side issue viz the ethics of having deciding a case with reference to an earlier one, Del Curto v Del Curto, with which he disagrees and in which he was on the losing side].
The Italian proceedings, recognition of which is being sought, vindicate Claimants’ rights over Davide Sidoli’s estate, including their rights to assets situated in England and Wales. This in essence begs the question whether the subject matter of the action in Italy was immoveable property not in Italy, hence engaging the Mozambique rule. Kireeva v Bedzhamov features of course.
[27] Dew DM remarks justifiably with respect to characterisation
Claims, in whatever jurisdiction, often have a multiplicity of subject-matter, even more so where the dispute relates to an entitlement to assets from an estate, where the subject-matter can variously be described as the Will, the estate generally, or the individual assets of that estate. Conflicts of law principles, however, often ask the court to decide in an overall sense what the subject matter of a dispute is before determining what system of law applies to it.
[28] it follows that the approach not to be followed is that if one can identify within the claim an asset which is both immoveable and out of the original court’s jurisdiction then any registration under the 1933 Act must be set aside. [29] The subject matter of the claim that was before the Italian Court was Davide’s succession. It was that which was at issue and it was the determination of those issues of succession which gave the Claimants, under Italian law, a right to compensation (and other orders) over the whole of Davide’s estate.
Hence the subject matter of the proceedings in Italy was not immoveable property. However he then holds, having analysed the 1933 Act in both its historical context and its statutory language, that the claim at issue falls within the meaning of the ‘administration of the estate of a deceased person’ over which as a result of the provisions of the 1933 Act, the Italian courts did not and should not have exercised jurisdiction.
Contrasting Sidoli with Del Curto, it is clear that a clarification by the Court of Appeal may be warranted seeing as the outcome of a registration process may now depend on which first instance judge one finds itself in front of.
Geert.