Post-Trial Joinder of Foreign Heirs: Jurisdiction over Inherited Liability Without Foreign Estate Administration

1. Introduction

This judgment addresses the consequences of a defendant dying after trial but before the court has finally determined the relief against him. In particular, it considers whether foreign heirs can be joined to English proceedings both to bind them to the determination of the deceased’s liability and to establish whether they have personally succeeded to that liability under foreign law.

The underlying litigation concerned Mozambique’s claims that a businessman and companies in the Privinvest Group had procured unsuitable maritime projects through bribery. The businessman died domiciled in Lebanon after giving evidence at trial. Under the Lebanese law evidence accepted for the jurisdiction application, his assets and liabilities passed automatically to his heirs, subject to limits on their liability and a right to disclaim the inheritance.

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the joinder of the deceased defendant’s widow and permission to serve her outside England and Wales. Its reasoning distinguishes three matters that must not be conflated:

• determining the deceased defendant’s underlying liability;
• determining whether an heir has succeeded to that liability in principle; and
• valuing inherited assets, resolving creditors’ priorities or ordering payment from particular assets.

The first two could be addressed in the existing English proceedings. The third category was expressly outside the relief sought. That limitation was central to the decision.

2. Background and Procedural Significance

The underlying litigation

Mozambique commenced proceedings in 2019 concerning three projects involving fishing vessels and related facilities. It alleged that corruption had induced it to enter contracts that were unsuitable for its needs and caused substantial losses.

The principal trial took place between October and December 2023. The individual defendant gave evidence despite serious illness, but died on 29 January 2024 before judgment was delivered.

The court deliberately reserved the consequences of death

Following competing applications concerning representation and joinder, Robin Knowles J made an important case-management order on 28 June 2024. It provided that the forthcoming judgment would state only what the outcome against the deceased would have been had he survived. Questions concerning the consequences of his death, representation and participation by the heirs remained reserved.

A temporary litigation representative was appointed under CPR 19.12 for specified purposes. That appointment did not finally resolve jurisdiction over the heirs, and their participation in the reserved issues did not amount to submission to the English court’s jurisdiction.

The main judgment, [2024] EWHC 1957 (Comm), was delivered on 29 July 2024. It found that the deceased’s liability would have been co-extensive with that of the Privinvest companies. An order subsequently required those companies to pay approximately US$534 million, approximately US$40 million in interest, and certain indemnities. They were also ordered to pay 85% of Mozambique’s costs on the indemnity basis. No corresponding final order was made against the deceased because the reserved issues remained unresolved.

The joinder application and appeal

On 16 June 2025, in [2025] EWHC 1481 (Comm), Robin Knowles J permitted Mozambique to amend its pleading, join the widow and two sons, and serve them outside the jurisdiction. The pleaded case was that, under Lebanese law, they had succeeded to the deceased’s liabilities, subject to their respective hereditary shares and the value of the assets inherited.

Before the appeal hearing, a Lebanese court confirmed that the sons had disclaimed their inheritance. Their appeals were allowed by consent. The contested appeal therefore concerned only the widow.

There was no suggestion that she had participated in, or knew of, the underlying wrongdoing. The claim against her rested on alleged succession to liability, not personal involvement in the conduct giving rise to it.

3. Summary of the Decision

Lord Justice Miles gave the leading judgment, with which Lady Justice Whipple and Lord Justice Males agreed. The widow’s appeal was dismissed.

The court upheld jurisdiction on two analytically distinct bases:

Crucially, the court did not finally determine that the widow owed a particular sum. Nor did it resolve the remaining Lebanese-law questions about whether the relevant liabilities passed to her. This was a decision permitting the claim to proceed, not a final judgment on inherited liability.

4. Legal Framework for Service Outside the Jurisdiction

The three requirements

The court applied Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804. A claimant seeking permission to serve a foreign defendant must establish:

1. a serious issue to be tried on the merits;
2. a good arguable case that the claim falls within an authorised jurisdictional gateway; and
3. that England and Wales is clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum and that permission should be granted as a matter of discretion.

Kaefer Aislamientos SA de CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA [2019] EWCA Civ 10, [2019] 1 WLR 3514 was cited for the meaning of “good arguable case”. No issue in this appeal depended on the finer distinctions within that test.

The necessary or proper party gateway

The principal gateway was paragraph 3.1(3) of Practice Direction 6B. Broadly, it allows a foreign defendant to be brought into proceedings where there is a real issue reasonably requiring determination against an existing, independently served defendant, and the foreign defendant is a necessary or proper party to that claim.

In Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc [2019] UKSC 20, [2020] AC 1045, Lord Briggs identified the relevant elements: a real issue against the anchor defendant, the reasonableness of trying it, the foreign defendant’s status as a necessary or proper party, a claim against that foreign defendant with a real prospect of success, and the appropriate forum or substantial-justice requirements.

These conditions remain important safeguards. Neither practical enforcement difficulties nor a desire to complete existing litigation independently creates jurisdiction.

5. The Enforcement Basis: Joinder After Trial

The influence and limits of the PIFSS decisions

The central precedent was The Public Institution for Social Security v Al-Wazzan (as representative of Al Rajaan), considered at first instance in [2024] EWHC 3321 (Comm) and on appeal in [2025] EWCA Civ 1505.

Those proceedings concerned alleged corruption by a deceased former director general. Under the Swiss law evidence, his heirs collectively succeeded to his legal position, and an effective judgment against Swiss estate assets needed to bind all relevant owners. The Court of Appeal upheld joinder so that the deceased’s liability could be determined once, in proceedings binding on the heirs.

The present judgment carefully explains what that precedent did—and did not—decide. The PIFSS appeal upheld the Enforcement Basis: declaratory relief binding the heirs as to the deceased’s liability. It did not establish jurisdiction on the alternative Substantive Basis, under which the heirs themselves would be held liable as successors.

Mozambique argued that the first-instance PIFSS decision had effectively permitted both routes. Lord Justice Miles rejected that reading. The substantive route had been left unresolved, and the Court of Appeal had found it unnecessary to determine the respondent’s notice concerning it. Consequently, the present judgment required its own analysis of substantive successor liability.

The pleading was sufficient

The widow argued that Mozambique had not properly pleaded an Enforcement Basis. The court disagreed. Paragraph 10.3 of the amended pleading alleged that the deceased was liable for the reasons and amounts already pleaded. That supplied a sufficient foundation for a declaration of his liability which would bind the widow once joined.

The court also held that a pleading does not generally need to explain why a party’s joinder is sought. The evidence established the potential enforcement difficulties if the heirs were absent. This conclusion concerns the sufficiency of the particular pleading; it does not remove the need to plead the substantive facts supporting the relief requested.

A completed trial does not necessarily exhaust the anchor claim

The widow’s principal argument was that there was no longer a real issue against the deceased which it was reasonable to try. The main judgment had already made findings, and the eventual order would, she argued, simply reproduce the order against the companies.

The court rejected an overly mechanical understanding of the procedural position. It accepted that further adjudicative acts remained necessary:

• the proceedings against the deceased had expressly not been completed;
• a further hearing was required to settle the order against his representative;
• no final judgment had been entered for the principal amount, interest or costs; and
• the representative remained entitled to make submissions before that order was made.

Those steps were not merely administrative. They also had obvious utility: a final judgment was required before enforcement could begin.

Why Erste Group Bank AG v JSC 'VMZ Red October' & Ors did not prevent joinder

In Erste Group Bank AG v JSC 'VMZ Red October' & Ors [2015] EWCA 379, the Court of Appeal examined whether, viewed independently, there was a real issue against the anchor defendants which it was reasonable for the English court to try.

The widow relied on that decision to argue that an uncontested claim, or one in which the defendant was not participating, could not provide a sufficient anchor. The court rejected such a categorical rule. In Erste, the conclusions reflected a complex combination of insolvency proceedings, existing foreign decisions, duplication of claims and the absence of practical utility in further English adjudication.

The governing inquiry is therefore fact-sensitive. Non-participation may matter, but it is not decisive. An important question is whether proceeding against the anchor defendant serves a genuine judicial purpose rather than generating pointless litigation.

The supporting role of Satfinance Investment Ltd v Athena Art Finance Corp

In Satfinance Investment Ltd v Athena Art Finance Corp [2020] EWHC 3527 (Ch), Morgan J recognised that a declaration concerning beneficial ownership could remain useful even where the anchor defendant had absconded and did not intend to defend. Making the declaration required a judicial assessment of its usefulness and appropriateness, unlike an administrative entry of default judgment.

Lord Justice Miles expressly approved that approach. It supported the distinction between a claim needing a genuine judicial act and one involving only empty procedural formality.

Participation and fairness

The widow also submitted that joinder after the main judgment afforded no realistic opportunity to influence the outcome. The court held that gateway (3) does not prescribe a particular level of participation by the additional defendant. In any event, Mozambique accepted that both the widow and the representative could make submissions on the terms of the order.

The judgment does not establish a general entitlement to reopen a completed trial. Its conclusion rests on the expressly reserved issues and the judicial work still required in these proceedings.

6. The Substantive Basis: Personal Succession Is Not Foreign Administration

The jurisdictional restriction in Dicey Rule 160

The widow’s main objection relied on Rule 160 of Dicey, Morris and Collins: a foreign personal representative cannot, as such, be sued in England.

The rule reflects the territorial character of estate administration. An English court ordinarily does not supervise the exercise of a foreign administrator’s office or subject assets held in that representative capacity to its judgment. Related rules distinguish the territorial reach of an English grant of administration from authority conferred by a foreign grant.

Two authorities illustrated the restriction:

• Nova v Grove [1982] 22 Alta LR (2d) 262 concerned a tort claim against a deceased person’s executor acting under a Texan grant which had not been resealed locally.
• Degazon v Barclays Bank International [1988] 1 FTLR 17 involved an English action against a bank in its capacity as executor under a Dominican grant. The claim was struck out on the jurisdictional principle governing foreign personal representatives.

The Court of Appeal accepted the rule. The issue was whether the widow was being sued in the capacity to which it applies.

Characterisation must respect the substance of foreign law

The widow relied on Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG v Five Star Trading LLC [2001] QB 825 to argue for an internationalist approach to legal characterisation. A foreign arrangement should not escape the administration rules merely because it uses different terminology from English law.

The court accepted the need for that approach. Its conclusion did not rest simply on Lebanon lacking the English labels “estate” or “personal representative”. It examined the actual rights, duties and processes established by the expert evidence.

The Lebanese-law evidence

The uncontested evidence showed that:

• there was no estate with a separate legal identity and no mandatory procedure equivalent to English estate administration;
• assets passed automatically and immediately to the heirs on death, subject to disclaimer;
• liabilities also passed automatically, subject to each heir’s share and the value of the inheritance;
• assets did not have to remain in a ring-fenced fund pending payment of creditors;
• heirs could dispose of inherited assets before debts were settled; and
• no representative had to be appointed to collect assets, ascertain liabilities and distribute the balance.

The widow relied on the Lebanese maxim “no inheritance before the payment of debts”. Both experts, however, accepted that this was not a literal description of a sequence in which debts had to be discharged before ownership vested. Rather, it expressed the heir’s liability for inherited debts within the applicable limits.

The consequence was decisive: the widow was being sued personally as an alleged successor to liabilities, not as the holder of a foreign administrative office. Rule 160 therefore did not bar the claim.

The administration–succession distinction in Viegas v Cutrale

In Viegas v Cutrale [2025] 1 WLR 1467, the court distinguished estate administration—broadly, collecting assets and paying debts—from succession to the beneficial entitlement remaining afterwards.

That discussion drew on In re Lorillard [1922] 2 Ch 638 and High Comr for Pakistan [2015] EWHC 3052 (Ch), which explain the role of the deceased’s domicile in determining beneficial succession after administration.

The widow argued that determining and paying debts must accordingly be classified as administration. The Court of Appeal rejected the application of that sequence to the evidence before it. The distinction discussed in Viegas v Cutrale, a choice-of-law case, presupposed an administration followed by distribution. It could not readily be mapped onto a system in which ownership and liabilities passed immediately on death.

More fundamentally, the present claim did not seek relief against a foreign personal representative. It therefore raised no corresponding risk of interfering with another court’s supervision of such a representative.

Why Re Achillopoulos was distinguishable

The widow also relied on Re Achillopoulos [1928] 1 Ch 433, where foreign heirs were treated as having rights and duties corresponding to those of English executors or administrators.

The court distinguished it on two grounds. It concerned the treatment of English assets in an ancillary administration, rather than the present jurisdictional objection. More importantly, the evidence there established executor-like duties. The Lebanese-law evidence here did not.

This distinction reinforces the judgment’s substantive approach: foreign heirs are neither automatically treated as administrators nor automatically excluded from that category. Their actual legal position matters.

What remained undecided on the merits

The rejection of Rule 160 established only that the claim was not barred at the threshold. Two Lebanese-law questions remained:

1. whether a tort liability not yet crystallised in a judgment could pass to an heir; and
2. whether a civil debt arising from criminal conduct could pass to an heir.

The court did not decide those questions. Nor did it suggest that criminal guilt or punishment transfers to an heir. The issue concerns civil financial liabilities arising from the deceased’s conduct.

7. The Gateways for Substantive Successor Liability

Gateway (3): the deceased’s liability supplied the common thread

Under Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd, a useful test is whether both defendants would have been proper parties had both been within the jurisdiction.

The authorities supporting that approach were:

• Massey v Heynes & Co (1888) 21 QBD 330, which asks whether the claims involve one investigation;
• Petroleo Brasiliero SA v Mellitus Shipping Inc (The Baltic Flame) [2001] EWCA Civ 418, applying that approach; and
• Carvill America Inc v Camperdown UK Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 645, recognising formulations such as “closely bound up” and “a common thread”.

The widow argued that the historic wrongdoing and her later succession were different matters. The court accepted that the claim against her introduced additional Lebanese-law issues, but held that the deceased’s underlying liability remained an essential ingredient of it. That dependency supplied a sufficient common thread.

Eurasia Sports Ltd v Tsai [2018] EWCA Civ 1742, [2018] 1 WLR 6089 distinguished gateway (3), which adds parties to an action, from gateway (4A), which concerns additional claims against a given party. That distinction did not defeat joinder here: the successor claim remained sufficiently connected to the existing action.

The limited relief was critical

Mozambique sought a declaration that the widow was liable in principle as successor. It did not seek:

• a money judgment against her for a specified amount;
• a valuation of her inheritance;
• a determination of priorities between creditors; or
• payment or transfer of particular inherited assets.

Lord Justice Miles expressly indicated that broader claims of that kind might have taken the proceedings into a sufficiently independent field that the deceased’s liability would no longer supply an adequate common thread. This is a major limit on the decision, not a peripheral qualification.

Gateways (6), (9) and (16)

The court also upheld a good arguable case under the gateways concerning contracts, torts and restitution.

The widow’s argument was that she had entered none of the relevant contracts, committed none of the tortious acts and engaged in none of the conduct underlying restitution. The court held that her personal participation was not necessarily required by the gateways’ wording.

For example, the tort gateway concerns specified connections involving damage, acts within the jurisdiction or English governing law. It does not invariably require the particular defendant served to have personally committed the alleged tort. Where the pleaded case is that a defendant has succeeded to an existing tort liability, the underlying tort remains an essential element of the claim.

Similar reasoning applied to claims “in respect of” qualifying contracts and to restitution. However, the court’s conclusions proceeded on the unchallenged basis that the original claims against the deceased satisfied the relevant gateways. They were also influenced by the narrowly confined successor-liability declaration sought.

The additional gateways received limited argument. Gateway (4A), although relied on below, was not substantively developed on appeal and did not provide a separately reasoned basis for the decision.

8. Appropriate Forum and Appellate Restraint

Foreign governing law was important, but not decisive

The forum assessment followed the principles associated with Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460.

The widow relied on VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, which recognises that, other things being equal, litigation is preferably tried in the country whose law applies. That factor becomes particularly significant where important legal issues or material differences between legal systems arise.

She also relied on Pescatore v Valentino [2021] EWHC 1953 (Ch). That decision cautions against finding misleading common-law equivalents for civil-law property and inheritance concepts, and recognises the advantages of determination by judges within the relevant legal system.

The Court of Appeal accepted the force of those considerations as general propositions. Their weight nevertheless depended on the actual issues presented, rather than on the mere presence of foreign inheritance law.

Why England remained the appropriate forum

The court identified several reasons supporting the judge’s conclusion:

1. The existing proceedings were unfinished. The English court was completing litigation properly before it, not starting a general inquiry into a foreign inheritance.
2. The foreign-law issues were confined. The remaining questions concerned whether the particular liabilities passed, not valuation, distribution or creditor priorities.
3. Expert evidence already existed. The parties and their English legal teams had already addressed the relevant Lebanese-law questions.
4. The Commercial Court could determine those questions. Its judges regularly resolve contested foreign-law issues.
5. The English court understood the underlying conduct. Its findings provided a useful foundation for assessing the character of the deceased’s liabilities.
6. The Enforcement Basis already justified the widow’s participation. Separate Lebanese proceedings on substantive succession would create additional costs and duplication.
7. Joinder reduced fragmentation. It addressed the risks of enforcement difficulties and inconsistent determinations of the deceased’s liability.

The court did not guarantee recognition or enforcement abroad. It treated the evidence of potential difficulties as relevant to the practical and procedural assessment.

The limits of appellate intervention

The court also relied on VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp for the restraint required when reviewing a forum decision. The assessment is evaluative. An appellate court should not substitute its own weighing of factors merely because another conclusion was possible.

Intervention requires an error such as ignoring a relevant consideration, taking account of an irrelevant one, or reaching a conclusion outside the rationally available range. No such error was established.

9. Significance and Potential Impact

A. Death after trial need not make existing proceedings ineffective

The decision provides a route for completing litigation where the defendant’s death changes the identity of those who must be bound. A completed trial does not necessarily prevent later joinder if genuine judicial work against the anchor defendant remains.

The qualification matters: the mere absence of a sealed order is not presented as sufficient in every case. Here, the reserved issues, necessary further hearing, continuing representation and practical utility established the continuing anchor claim.

B. Universal succession requires attention to actual legal effects

The judgment discourages forcing foreign succession systems into an English model of administration followed by distribution. Courts must examine whether the heir actually holds an administrative office or has instead acquired personal rights and liabilities immediately.

This reasoning may influence disputes involving other automatic-succession systems. Its application will depend on evidence of the particular foreign law; the outcome is not transferable merely because another jurisdiction uses the language of universal succession.

C. The two bases of joinder should be kept distinct

Binding an heir to a determination of the deceased’s liability is different from establishing the heir’s own obligation to answer for it. Separating those objectives helps identify the necessary pleading, jurisdictional basis and relief.

The judgment extends beyond the issue resolved in the PIFSS appeal by approving, on the facts and at the jurisdictional threshold, the additional claim for substantive successor liability in principle.

D. Carefully confined relief can determine jurisdiction

The court repeatedly relied on the absence of claims concerning valuation, priorities or specific assets. Parties cannot assume that jurisdiction to declare successor liability also authorises the English court to conduct the wider financial settlement of a foreign inheritance.

Equally, narrowing the requested relief does not dispense with the service-out requirements. The claimant must still establish an arguable merits case, a gateway and an appropriate forum.

E. The decision preserves important protections for heirs

The widow’s lack of involvement in wrongdoing did not itself defeat successor liability, but neither did joinder make her liable without limit. The pleaded claim remained subject to Lebanese-law restrictions, including her hereditary share and the value inherited. The sons’ successful disclaimers also demonstrate the practical importance of the foreign law’s rules on renunciation.

The judgment therefore concerns identifying the proper defendant and permissible forum, not imposing guilt by association or granting an unrestricted recovery against family members.

10. Complex Concepts Simplified

Service out of the jurisdiction

Formal delivery of English proceedings to a defendant abroad. Where permission is required, the claimant must satisfy specific legal conditions before the English court can exercise jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional gateway

A recognised category connecting a claim to England and Wales. Passing a gateway is necessary, but does not by itself establish that England is the appropriate forum.

Anchor defendant

An existing defendant whose independently established position in the proceedings may support joining a sufficiently connected foreign defendant.

Universal succession

A system under which heirs succeed directly to the deceased’s legal position, including assets and potentially liabilities. The details and limits differ between legal systems.

Foreign personal representative

A person acting under foreign authority to administer a deceased person’s affairs. Being an heir does not necessarily make someone a personal representative.

Declaratory relief

A binding statement of legal rights or liabilities. It need not itself order payment.

Liability in principle

A determination that someone legally answers for an obligation, leaving the recoverable amount or other financial limits to be established separately.

Uncrystallised liability

A potential obligation whose existence or amount has not yet been finally established by judgment. Whether such a liability passed under Lebanese law remained unresolved.

Comity

Respect between legal systems, including avoiding improper interference with another country’s administration of legal affairs.

Disclaimer

A legally effective rejection of an inheritance. Its requirements and consequences depend on the applicable succession law.

11. Conclusion

The judgment confirms that foreign heirs may be joined after trial where genuine adjudication against the deceased’s representative remains necessary. It also establishes that a personal claim against an heir who allegedly succeeded automatically to liabilities is not necessarily a prohibited claim against a foreign estate administrator.

Its reach is deliberately confined. The court permitted determination of liability in principle; it did not decide the outstanding succession questions, quantify the widow’s liability, value her inheritance or settle creditors’ priorities. The broader lesson is that jurisdiction depends on the substance of the foreign legal relationship, the judicial work remaining and the precise relief sought.