High Court Limits Recognition of Italian Inheritance Judgments in English Estate Dispute

What did the High Court decide?

In Antonio Sidoli & Anor v Dante Sidoli & Anor [2026] EWHC 2769 (BP), Mr Justice Thompsell considered an appeal concerning the registration in England of judgments made by the courts in Piacenza and Bologna, Italy. The proceedings concerned the estates of Davide Sidoli and his father, Quintilio Sidoli, both of whom had been domiciled in England when they died.

The central issue was whether the Italian judgments could be registered under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. The Italian courts had applied Italian succession law, including rules protecting the inheritance rights of children, and had made orders affecting property in both Italy and England.

Thompsell J concluded that the Italian judgments were not enforceable as a whole. Their character was not confined to an ordinary personal money claim: they also determined family status, purported to invalidate an English will and made declarations concerning property. The relevant route was therefore section 4(2)(c) of the 1933 Act, which asks whether the jurisdiction of the original court is recognised by the law of the registering court.

However, the judge held that the Italian courts did have jurisdiction, applying English conflict-of-laws principles, over succession to immovable property situated in Italy. The judgment could therefore be recognised to that limited extent. The appeal succeeded in part on Ground 3.

How did the inheritance dispute arise?

The dispute followed the deaths of Quintilio Sidoli in 2004 and his son Davide in 2006. Both were Italian citizens but were resident and domiciled in England at the time of death. Davide’s English will left his estate to his brother Dante and sister-in-law Anna, expressly excluding Antonio and Andrea because he did not accept that they were his natural children.

Antonio and Andrea began proceedings in Italy in 2012. The Italian courts accepted that Davide was their father and found that his belief to the contrary had affected the testamentary provisions excluding them. The Piacenza court set aside relevant provisions of Davide’s will, treated Antonio and Andrea as his heirs and made orders concerning property and money. It ordered payment of €381,796.31, together with legal interest, and dealt with property in Morfasso, Italy. The Bologna Court of Appeal dismissed the respondents’ appeal in December 2022.

The English registration proceedings took a different course. Deputy Master Dew refused registration, reasoning that the 1933 Act did not permit the registration of judgments concerning succession in the circumstances. The claimants appealed that decision to the High Court.

1. 14 May 2004 Quintilio Sidoli dies, having made wills dealing with assets in England and Italy.
2. 14 September 2006 Davide Sidoli dies after making an English will which excludes Antonio and Andrea.
3. 2012 Antonio and Andrea commence inheritance proceedings in Italy.
4. 21 February 2020 The Court of Piacenza gives judgment, including a monetary award of €381,796.31.
5. 28 December 2022 The Court of Appeal of Bologna dismisses the appeal against the first-instance judgment.
6. 10 June 2025 Deputy Master Dew refuses registration in England.
7. 29 October 2026 The High Court allows the appeal in part and limits recognition to the Italian property element.

Why could the Italian judgment only be partly recognised?

The court examined the structure of the 1933 Act, particularly sections 4 and 11. Section 4 provides grounds on which registration must be set aside where the original court lacked jurisdiction. Section 11(2) excludes certain proceedings, including proceedings connected with the administration of the estates of deceased persons, from the statutory meaning of an “action in personam”.

Thompsell J did not accept that the omission of the word “succession” from section 11(2) meant that all succession claims must be treated as actions in personam. Nor did he agree that “administration of estates” necessarily included succession. Instead, the Italian judgments had to be considered under section 4(2)(c), because they involved a combination of issues that could not properly be characterised simply as an action in personam or an action concerning property.

Those issues included the paternity and status of Antonio and Andrea, the purported invalidation of an English will, and the ownership or succession to property in Italy and England. The judge held that English courts would recognise the jurisdiction of the Italian courts to determine succession to property situated in Italy. They would not, however, recognise Italian jurisdiction to decide the validity of Davide’s English will or who should inherit his property in England.

“It is not necessary to adopt a ‘winner takes all’ approach.”

Mr Justice Thompsell’s approach to separating the parts of a foreign judgment that fall within the original court’s recognised jurisdiction.

The judge therefore rejected the idea that the entire judgment had to stand or fall together. Where a foreign judgment contains distinct elements governed by different jurisdictional rules, the English court can identify and recognise the parts that fall within the foreign court’s proper jurisdiction.

How was the enforceable amount calculated?

The original Italian award was €381,796.31. The High Court did not register that full sum. It calculated the amount attributable to the Italian immovable property and the claimants’ recognised forced-inheritance rights.

The judge identified €45,865.79 as the value of the relevant Italian real property. He then prorated the €2,034 appeal costs awarded in Italy, reducing that element to €244.28. Together, those figures produced a registrable amount of €46,110.07.

Italian statutory interest is to be added to that reduced amount from 21 February 2020, the date of the Piacenza first-instance judgment. The court also directed that the joint and several obligation concerning the technical adviser’s costs, together with any appropriate right of contribution between the parties, should be reflected in the order.

What does the ruling mean for cross-border estates?

The decision is significant for parties seeking to enforce foreign inheritance judgments in England and Wales. It confirms that the court must look closely at what the foreign proceedings actually determined, rather than relying only on the label attached to the claim or treating the judgment as a single indivisible outcome.

For estates involving assets in several countries, the location and nature of each asset can be decisive. The judgment recognises the ability of an Italian court to determine succession to Italian immovable property, while maintaining the limits imposed by English conflict-of-laws rules in relation to English land and an English will.

For practitioners, the practical point is to identify and evidence the separate components of a foreign judgment. A claim for registration may succeed in part even where other aspects of the foreign court’s decision cannot be recognised. The court may calculate a reduced sum that reflects only the elements within the foreign court’s recognised jurisdiction.

The High Court directed the parties to seek agreement on a draft order reflecting its conclusions. If they could not agree, they were to identify the points of disagreement for the judge to determine on paper. A short consequential hearing was also to be listed to address matters including costs and any application for permission to appeal.