The Tussle Between Civil and Common Law on Forced Heirship - Sidoli v Sidoli
The case of Sidoli & Anor v Sidoli & Anor [20205] EWHC 1415 (Ch) is emblematic of the conflict between common law and civil law around succession rights. Where the former allows testamentary freedom, and later provides prescribed heirs guarantee of succession that cannot be disinherited.
Davide Sidoli died in England leaving an English will with the main asset being immovable property located that country. His will specifically stating that his former’s wife’s children who resided in Italy, shall not receive any part of his estate. There was no question of his intention as the wording of his will was unambiguous. Instead, the issue in this case was conflict of law.
After his death, Davide’s stepchildren, successfully obtained a judgment in Italy declaring them to be the children of Davide, and that his English will be set aside. Davide’s stepchildren sought registration of that Italian judgment and its enforcement in England pursuant to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.
The English Court found, that the initial grounds for permitting the registration of the Italian judgment under section 2(1) of the Act were met. Namely, that the foreign judgment be final and conclusive; there be payable under it a sum of money; and it must be made by a recognised court after the date on which the Order in Counsel recognising that the Court came into force. In addition, the judgment shall not be registered if at the date of the application (a) it has been wholly satisfied or (b) it could not be enforced by execution in the country of the original court.
With the above conditions having been meet, the Court could set aside the registration of a judgment if the registering court is satisfied conditions under Section 4 of the Act had been met. Namely, that the original court had no jurisdiction on a subject matter related to immovable property; and it had no jurisdiction on the basis that the claim did not constitute an action in personam.
Interestingly, the Court rejected the claim put forward by Davide’s estate that if an asset is immovable and out of the original court’s jurisdiction, then the registration must be set aside. It also found that the subject matter of the proceedings in Italy was about the succession of Davide’s estate and that an action in personum shall not exclude the matter of the administration of the estate of deceased persons.
Instead, the Court considered common law conflicts of law in England and Wales.
“English Court applies English law to the succession of immovable assets in this jurisdiction and to the worldwide movable assets domicile in this country. Accordingly, it does not recognise judgments which determine the succession of immovable assets in the jurisdiction or to the moveable asset of those domiciled here. The Act was not intended to change the common law”.
Further, English Courts have considered that succession is the subject matter, and it is not an action in personum but rather should be enforceable against the world as action in rem. It would only be in personum if the party voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction. The Act probably did intend to include the administration of estates but not on matters of succession.
Therefore, the Italian Court under English principles had no jurisdiction over succession matters where a person had English domicile regardless of the assets being immovable or immovable. The court found that the action was registerable, but the registration should be set aside.
In an increasingly complicated globalised world, countries are seeking to assert extraterritorial reach over mobilised family members and their assets. Such tussle between civil law and common law jurisdictions can become complicated so legal advice is always advised to prevent issues from arising.
The contents of this article are generalised, and readers are urged to seek specific advice on matters and not rely solely on this text.
© Vibha Vallabh, Ellora Private Office, August 2025