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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll