In Sidoli v Sidoli [2026] EWHC 2769 (Ch), the High Court of England and Wales considered whether an Italian judgment concerning succession rights could be registered in England under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (the 1933 Act), where the judgment concerned UK-domiciled individuals and assets situated in both England and Italy. The central issue was the extent to which an English court could recognize a foreign judgment based on the application of the foreign court's own succession laws.
The dispute concerned the estate of Davide Sidoli, an Italian citizen resident in the UK who died in 2006. A few weeks before his death, while receiving care in a London hospice, he executed an English will leaving his worldwide estate to his brother and sister-in-law, Dante Sidoli and Anna Moruzzi (the respondents). A dispute subsequently arose when his two children, Antonio and Andrea Sidoli (the appellants), claimed entitlement to a share of the estate under Italian succession law.
In a specific clause of his will, the deceased explained that he had excluded the appellants because he did not regard them as his ‘natural’ children, notwithstanding that they were the children of his former wife.
The dispute was brought before the Italian courts. First the Piacenza Court, and then the Bologna Court of Appeal, both set aside the deceased’s will on the basis that it had been made under a mistaken belief. The court consequently recognized the appellants as his legitimate heirs, each entitled to an equal share of the estate. This included the deceased's interest in a London property that he had inherited from his own father, who was also an Italian citizen. The Italian judgment awarded them EUR 381,796.31.
Following their unsuccessful challenge in Italy, the respondents brought proceedings in England. The principal issue was whether the Italian judgments, or either of them, could be registered under the 1933 Act.
The matter came before Deputy Master Dew in the High Court in June 2025. He refused registration, holding that the 1933 Act could not be relied upon to register foreign judgments arising from succession proceedings over which the Italian courts lacked jurisdiction. He identified four separate grounds for reaching this conclusion, based on his interpretation of the statutory provisions.
The appellants appealed, and the matter came before Thompsell J in the High Court's Business and Property Courts. The judge upheld Deputy Master Dew's decision in part, agreeing that the Italian judgment could not be recognized insofar as it purported to determine succession to assets belonging to a person domiciled and resident in England. However, he considered that this conclusion should be limited to assets situated in the UK and matters of succession governed by the law of the deceased's domicile. The position was different in relation to the Italian estate, valued at EUR 410,855.93, which the deceased had inherited from his father and which was subject to Italy's forced-heirship rules.
Thompsell J declared that ‘There were separate issues here that could be dealt with separately sensibly and in line with the purpose of the legislation to recognize judgments where there would be reciprocity’.
Accordingly, the judge concluded that the Italian judgments could be recognized to the extent that they concerned the property inherited by the deceased in Italy and the application of Italian forced-heirship rules. Such recognition did not, however, extend to the Italian court's purported invalidation of the deceased's English will. Thompsell J therefore recalculated the amount recoverable by the appellants, accepting the Italian courts' jurisdiction in respect of forced succession only to the extent that it concerned immovable property situated in Italy.
The amount payable by the respondents was consequently reduced from EUR 381,796.31, as determined by the Italian courts, to EUR 45,865.79.