Public Institution for Social Security v Al Rajaan [2025] EWCA Civ 1505
In a short but important judgment, the English Court of Appeal has found that successors under a foreign system of law (here, Swiss law) can be joined as parties to a claim for the purposes of binding them to declaratory relief against the deceased on the question of liability. That is even where there is an English personal representative in place as a defendant to the proceedings. The jurisdiction for the service out on the heirs was the “necessary or proper party” gateway.
The bases of the joinder were twofold. First, the “Enforcement Basis”, which was to be regarded as a claim for purely declaratory relief against the heirs, namely a declaration as to the liability of the deceased (at [19]). Second, the “Substantive Basis”, which would involve a money judgment against the heirs.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against service out on their heirs solely on the Enforcement Basis. The reason for the joinder is said to be the desirability of their being bound to the outcome of the issue between the claimant and the deceased person (see [34]), and the fact that that issue should only be determined once (at [32]). Importantly, that outcome would apply to proceedings entirely within the jurisdiction (at [34] and [36]).
Arnold LJ rejected the arguments that this was contrary to principle because (a) it involved the court collapsing the distinction between administration and succession where under English domestic and conflict rules no succession had or cold take place, or (b) because it breached the principle that foreign personal representatives could not be sued in England (at [32]-[36]). He reasoned that no such collapse had occurred because the heirs could still seek to declaim their inheritance.
The Court of Appeal declined to deal with the “interesting arguments” on which the appellants “might have more traction” concerning whether “substantive relief” (i.e., a money judgment) could be awarded against the heirs (at [37]). Thus, the Substantive Basis is said to remain open to further interesting argument.
To read the full judgment please click here
Timothy Sherwin acted for the appellants, instructed by PCB Byrne LLP.
