English Equity and Italian Land: The In-Personam Exception

The Moçambique Rule prohibits English courts from determining title to foreign land. But it does not prohibit English courts from acting against the person of a defendant who is within the jurisdiction, in respect of obligations arising from contract, equity, trust, or fiduciary relationship — even when those obligations concern Italian real estate. This "in-personam exception" is one of the most powerful tools available to UK-based clients who have been defrauded, misled, or betrayed by a counterparty in a transaction involving Italian property.

This briefing examines the doctrinal foundations, the principal authorities, the practical limits, and the operational scenarios in which the exception operates.

The Doctrinal Foundation

The in-personam exception is stated in Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th Edition) as Exception (a) to Rule 138:

"The court may exercise jurisdiction against a person within the jurisdiction in respect of an obligation arising from contract or equity (fraud, trust, fiduciary relationship) even if the subject matter of the obligation relates to foreign land."

The exception is not a modern invention. It originates in the equitable jurisdiction of the English Court of Chancery, which historically distinguished between actions in rem (directed at the property itself) and actions in personam (directed at the conscience of the individual). The foundational authority is Penn v Baltimore (1750) 1 Ves. Sen. 444, in which Lord Hardwicke established that the Court of Chancery could act upon parties within its jurisdiction "without intermeddling with the title or possession of the land" in a foreign country.

The principle was refined by Lord Cottenham, who articulated the limitation that an English court of equity will act upon its own rules of equity for parties within England, but will not decree an act that the lex situs forbids. This dual principle — personal jurisdiction coupled with respect for foreign formalities — remains the governing framework.

The Key Authorities

Webb v Webb [1994] QB 696

This is the most important modern authority for the in-personam exception. A father purchased a flat in Antibes, France, in his son's name. The father later sought a declaration that the son held the flat on trust for him.

The European Court of Justice held that the claim did not involve "rights in rem in immovable property" within the meaning of Article 16 of the Brussels Convention (now Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (Recast)). The father was not claiming to be the owner of the property in any proprietary sense. He was claiming that the son had a personal obligation to hold the property on trust and to transfer it if required. This was an action in personam, and the English court had jurisdiction.

The principle: A claim that someone holds foreign property on trust is a claim about the personal obligations of the legal owner. It is not a claim about the property itself. English courts can hear such claims.

Lord Cottenham's Limitation

While the English court can act in personam against a person within the jurisdiction, it will not order that person to do something that the lex situs forbids. This limitation has several practical consequences for Italian property:

The English court cannot order the execution of an Italian Rogito. The transfer of Italian real estate requires a notarial deed executed before an Italian Notary. An English court order cannot substitute for this formality.

The English court cannot override Italian mandatory rules. If Italian urbanistic regulations prohibit the sale of a particular property (e.g., because it lacks planning consent), the English court will not order the defendant to sell it.

The English court cannot compel the Italian land registry to accept a registration. The Conservatoria dei Registri Immobiliari operates under Italian administrative law. An English court has no power over the Italian registrar.

What the English court can do is more subtle but highly effective: it can declare that the defendant holds the property on trust, order the defendant to take all steps within their power to effect a transfer, award equitable compensation, order an account of profits, impose a constructive trust, or grant injunctive relief preventing the defendant from disposing of the property.

Pescatore v Valentino [2021] EWHC 1953 (Ch.)

This recent authority confirms the reciprocal dimension. An Italian judgment affecting English immovable property was held to be unenforceable in England. The English court will act only through its own processes, based on its own jurisdiction. Italian judicial decisions regarding English land are not recognised.

Practical Scenarios

Scenario 1: Fraud by a UK-Based Vendor

A UK-resident individual sells Italian property to a buyer. The vendor warrants that the property is free from encumbrances. After the sale, the buyer discovers a pre-existing mortgage registered against the property in the Italian Conservatoria.

The title question — whether the mortgage affects the buyer's title — must be resolved in Italy, before the Italian courts, under Italian property law.

The fraud/breach of warranty question — whether the vendor made false representations and is liable in damages — can be pursued in England. The English court has in-personam jurisdiction over the vendor. The court does not need to adjudicate the Italian title in order to determine whether the vendor breached their contractual warranties. The remedy is damages, potentially assessed by reference to the diminution in value of the property caused by the undisclosed encumbrance.

Scenario 2: The Family Trust Dispute

Two UK-resident siblings inherit Italian property from their parents. The property is registered in the elder sibling's name, on the understanding (evidenced by family correspondence) that it is held for both siblings equally. The elder sibling refuses to transfer a half-share to the younger sibling.

Under Webb v Webb, the younger sibling can bring a claim in England for a declaration that the elder sibling holds the property on trust. The English court acts in personam against the elder sibling, who is within the jurisdiction. The court can declare the trust, order the elder sibling to take all steps necessary to effect a transfer (including instructing an Italian Notary to prepare the necessary deed), and, if the elder sibling refuses, appoint a receiver or award equitable compensation.

The court cannot directly amend the Italian land registry, but its order creates a binding obligation on the elder sibling that can be enforced through contempt proceedings in England.

Scenario 3: The Partnership Dissolution

Two UK business partners jointly invest in a commercial property in Milan. The property is registered in one partner's name due to administrative convenience. The partnership dissolves acrimoniously. The registered partner claims sole ownership.

The non-registered partner has a claim based on constructive trust (arising from the partnership agreement and the financial contributions) and potentially breach of fiduciary duty. Both claims are in personam. The English court can determine the beneficial ownership of the property and order appropriate relief.

Scenario 4: The Unfulfilled Promise

A UK-resident parent promises to transfer Italian property to their child upon marriage. The child relies on the promise — perhaps by turning down other opportunities, investing in renovations, or taking on debt. The parent reneges.

Depending on the circumstances, the child may have a claim based on proprietary estoppel — a doctrine of English equity under which a person who has relied to their detriment on another's promise regarding property may be awarded a remedy. If the parent is within the jurisdiction of the English court, an in-personam claim is available.

However, a critical question arises: will the Italian lex situs recognise the resulting obligation? Proprietary estoppel is not a concept known to Italian civil law. Lord Cottenham's limitation may therefore apply: the English court may be unable to order a transfer that Italian law does not recognise. The remedy may be limited to equitable compensation (monetary damages) rather than a transfer of the property itself.

Scenario 5: Estate Administration

A deceased person held property in both England and Italy. The English personal representative needs to determine questions about the Italian property as part of administering the overall estate. Under Exception (b) to Rule 138, the English court has jurisdiction to determine title to foreign immovables for the purpose of administering an estate or trust that includes property in England.

This exception is narrower than Exception (a). It applies only in the context of estate or trust administration, and only when the estate includes English assets. It does not apply to freestanding property disputes.

The Limits of the Exception

The in-personam exception is powerful but not unlimited. Several constraints must be understood:

The defendant must be within the jurisdiction. The English court's in-personam jurisdiction depends on the defendant being present in, or subject to the jurisdiction of, England. If the counterparty is resident in Italy and has no connection to England, the in-personam exception does not assist. The claim must be brought in Italy.

The cause of action must be personal, not proprietary. The claim must be framed as a personal obligation — contract, fraud, trust, fiduciary duty — rather than a proprietary claim to the land itself. If the claimant asserts "I own this land," the Moçambique Rule applies and the English court has no jurisdiction. If the claimant asserts "you are under a personal obligation to hold this land for me," the in-personam exception applies.

Lord Cottenham's limitation. The English court will not order an act that Italian law forbids. This limits the available remedies. The court can declare rights, order the defendant to take steps, and award monetary compensation — but it cannot override Italian property formalities or compel the Italian land registry to act.

Forum non conveniens. Even if jurisdiction exists under the in-personam exception, the English court may decline to exercise it if Italy is the more appropriate forum. The court will consider whether the witnesses, the documents, and the applicable law all point to Italy, and whether justice is better served by an Italian proceeding.

The Strategic Advantage

Despite these limitations, the in-personam exception provides a significant strategic advantage for UK-based clients. English proceedings are often faster, more procedurally efficient, and more familiar to the client and their advisors than Italian proceedings. English disclosure rules are more extensive. English interim remedies (freezing injunctions, proprietary injunctions) are powerful and can be obtained urgently.

For a UK-based client who has been defrauded by a UK-based counterparty in relation to Italian property, the in-personam exception offers not merely a theoretical jurisdiction but a practical pathway to effective relief.

Professional Legal Considerations

Practitioners should evaluate every Italian property dispute for its in-personam potential before advising the client that they must litigate exclusively in Italy. The distinction between an action in rem (prohibited by Moçambique) and an action in personam (permitted by the exception) is a distinction of characterisation, and skilful pleading can ensure that a claim falls on the correct side of the line.

Early engagement of both English and Italian counsel is essential. The English court may make declarations and orders that then need to be implemented through the Italian legal system. A coordinated strategy — English proceedings for the personal obligation, Italian proceedings for the property transfer — is often the optimal approach.

Ask the Property Desk about In-Personam Claims

---

Authority Notes

The in-personam exception is stated as Exception (a) to Rule 138 in Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th Edition), Chapter 24. The Italian PIL confirmation is found in Article 51 of Law 218/1995 (lex rei sitae), which operates as the Italian mirror of the Moçambique Rule: Italian courts exercise exclusive authority over Italian land, just as English courts exercise exclusive authority over English land. Article 16 of Law 218/1995 (ordine pubblico) provides the Italian public policy control that may limit the recognition of foreign equitable orders affecting Italian property. The foundational equity case is Penn v Baltimore (1750). The modern authority is Webb v Webb [1994] QB 696. The non-recognition of Italian judgments affecting English land is confirmed in Pescatore v Valentino [2021] EWHC 1953 (Ch.).

[!TIP] Authoritative Links: For the general rule that this exception qualifies, see our note on The Moçambique Rule. For the property formalities that constrain the available remedies, see Buying Property in Italy 2026.