header-logo header-logo

‘Immovables rule’ continues to rule

27 November 2024
Issue: 8096 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Insolvency , International
printer mail-detail
Property and other immovables in England and Wales are protected from the reach of foreign judicial decisions, the Supreme Court has confirmed.

Dismissing the appeal in Kireeva v Bedzhamov [2024] UKSC 39, the court rejected the argument that common law allows a foreign authority to claim local immovables.

The respondent, Georgy Ivanovich Bedzhamov, owns property in Belgravia, London. A bankruptcy order was made against him by a Moscow court. The appellant, Lyubov Kireeva, was appointed trustee of Bedzhamov’s bankruptcy estate. Under Russian law, the London property forms part of the bankruptcy estate. The Supreme Court held, however, that the immovables rule prevents the trustee from claiming the London house and from obtaining assistance from the English court to do so.

Delivering their judgment last week, Lords Lloyd-Jones and Richards commented that the immovables rule ‘produces a surprising result in leaving the bankrupt’s immovable property in this country to be enjoyed by the bankrupt or to be taken in execution by individual creditors on a first come, first served basis, when in a bankruptcy under the laws of both this country and the foreign state (in this case, Russia), immovable property would form part of the bankrupt's estate.

‘That, however, is a policy reason to be considered in the context of any proposal for legislative change.’

Kathleen Garrett, partner at Reed Smith, said: ‘A foreign court has no jurisdiction to make orders on real property/immovables in England when it comes to foreign insolvency procedures.

‘The ruling appears to reflect a move to territorialism by the Supreme Court following its judgments in Rubin v Eurofinance SA and New Cap Reinsurance Corp (in liquidation) v Grant [2012] UKSC 46. This ruling will help to provide legal certainty in respect of rights over English real property/immovables at common law.

‘This will be a particularly significant, and potentially concerning, judgment for common law countries that have not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency and have been relying on recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings under common law. However, where it is difficult to conduct a parallel procedure for creditors, any issues that do materialise will not be easily resolved.’

Issue: 8096 / Categories: Legal News , Property , Insolvency , International
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll