English Court refuses registration of Italian succession judgment in Sidoli case

A dispute arising from a blended family: Who is who in the Sidoli case?

The claimants were both born in England and spent their early childhood years here with their mother. Around 1985, following their mother’s divorce with Davide Sidoli (‘Davide’) they relocated to Italy with their mother where they continue to live to this day.

The defendants; Dante was born and raised in London whereas Anna was born in Italy and moved to London in 1956, during her childhood.

The wider Sidoli family history reveals deep roots in England, with both Dante’s father, Quintilio, and his brother Davide having lived, and worked, and died in England maintaining lifelong connections to the country. Whilst Quintilio and Davide both were also Italian citizens, their connections with la Dolce Vita were merely hereditary. They had superfluous ties.

This family narrative is a clear example of a blended family, illustrating how members with shared heritage have settled across borders and developed overlapping cultural and legal ties between Italy and the UK.

Background

The dispute arose following the death of Davide Sidoli (“Davide”) in 2006. Davide had inherited assets from his late father and subsequently disposed of his own Estate in favour of his surviving brother and sister-in-law, deliberately and expressly excluding others. These excluded individuals later contested the will in the Italian courts. Italian succession law provided legal grounds for their challenge that are not available under English law, which is why the claimants chose not to bring proceedings in England and Wales.

Following the above narrative, one would think that England and Wales was the forum where any dispute should have been dealt with in first instance, but, how did this case end up in Italy? The short answer is found within Italian domestic law. The nationality of the deceased person whose estate is in dispute is one of the definitional factors in Italian domestic law that allows a party to bring a claim in Italy. This was clearly an exercise of what is known as forum shopping[1].

In May 2012, nearly six years after Davide’s death the claimants issued proceedings before the Court of Piacenza, Italy. The claimants mainly sought:

1. In first instance, the annulment of Davide’s English Will and a declaration that they were entitled to the whole of Davide’s Estate by application of Italian intestacy rules. The claimants’ argument was that Davide mistakenly left them out of the Will believing that they were not his biological children.

1. Alternatively, the claimants sought a declaration from the Italian Court finding a breach of Italian forced heirship rules and apportioning the relevant quota of Davide’s Estate established by Italian law (quota di legittima), to the claimants.

The litigation in Italy was extremely and unnecessarily long – it lasted over 10 years.

The proceedings culminated in a decision by the Court of Appeal in Bologna in December 2022, awarding the claimants Davide’s whole Estate valued at nearly €400k (circa £340k).

The claimants brought proceedings to this jurisdiction in November 2023 to have the Italian judgment registered and enforced.

The English proceedings were successfully defended and concluded within 12 months.

Procedural history

In December 2023, the claimants applied to register the Italian judgment in the jurisdiction of England and Wales under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.

Master Stevens made an order initially recognising the Italian judgement and giving the defendants the opportunity to apply to set it aside. The defendants successfully set aside the original order and sought to transfer the case to a specialist court, the Chancery Division at the High Court in London where, in May 2025, the case was heard before Deputy Master Dew.

Legal issues

The crux of the case was whether a foreign judgment concerning succession rights was capable of being registered and enforced in England under the 1933 Act and examine, inter alia, the following:

1. Whether the Italian judgment created a final and conclusive obligation.
2. Whether the judgment concerned “movable” or “immovable” property.

• Whether the Italian court had proper jurisdiction over assets located outside of Italy.

The High Court’s decision

Deputy Master Dew dismissed the claimants’ application, holding that the Italian succession judgment could not be registered under the 1933 Act.

The court provided a detailed and reasoned judgement. The key takeaways are the following:

1. Firstly, the nature of the claim – Although the Italian court’s decision created a monetary obligation, it was fundamentally a succession judgment, arising from inheritance proceedings rather than a debt or tortious liability. Under English law, such succession matters fall outside the scope of the 1933 Act, which is designed to facilitate enforcement of civil and commercial judgments. 

1. Secondly, the jurisdictional limitations – The bulk of the Estate concerning the dispute was primarily located outside Italy. The court held that the Italian judgment could not have binding legal effect in England concerning assets over which the Italian court lacked jurisdiction. The 1933 Act does not permit enforcement of judgments relating to immovable property located outside the foreign court’s territorial reach.

• Davide’s domicile – Deputy Master Dew was satisfied that Davide had English domicile of origin and therefore the English court should have heard the case from the outset. As such, the court found that the registration of the foreign judgment could not be registered and enforced on the grounds that the country of the original court (i.e. Italy) had no jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case. 

Conclusion and implications

The court dismissed the registration application, emphasising the limits of English recognition of foreign succession rulings.

This judgment reinforces the principle that English courts will not enforce foreign judgments that, though final and monetary in nature, stem from succession disputes involving property over which the foreign court lacked jurisdiction. It also illustrates the enduring cautious approach taken by English law toward cross-border estate and probate enforcement.

Gonzalo Butori was the leading solicitor in this case. His international experience and expertise, together with his fluency in Italian, helped the clients navigate the nuances of a complex cross-border dispute.

His pragmatic, solution-focused advice, guided by Counsel Raj Sahonte of New Square Chambers lead our clients to obtain a successful result in what had been, for both parties, a very long and costly legal battle, both emotionally and financially.

If you need help understanding the potential risk of cross-border inheritance disputes, get in touch with our expert contentious probate solicitors by email or call +44(0)3333 231580.

[1] Forum shopping is consciously choosing the court or jurisdiction (i.e. Italy in this case) in which to commence litigation in order to begin with a strategic advantage. Forum shopping is essentially a strategic way to leverage the differences in standards of law, rules of procedure, or judges’ predispositions in different jurisdictions, to achieve a legal result that favours the party engaging in the forum shopping. In this case, the claimants would have failed to obtain any relief had they based their claim on the same arguments on which they relied before the Italian court. Additionally, the severe delay in bringing the action before the court would have also barred them from pursuing any action, potentially under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.