## Facts

- The dispute arose between a father and son regarding the ownership of a property held in trust and located in France.
- The father, as claimant, sought a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of the French property, even though it was registered in his son's name.
- The trust was established under foreign (French) law, raising cross-border issues.
- The central question was whether the English courts had jurisdiction to hear the claim or if it fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the French courts, given the property's location.
- The claim centered on the rights under the trust arrangement, not on changes to the legal title of the property.

## Issues

1. Whether claims for a declaration of beneficial ownership in trust assets located abroad constitute claims in rem (rights over property) or in personam (rights against a person).
2. Whether Article 16 of the Brussels Convention, which provides for exclusive jurisdiction in matters concerning immovable property, applied to the claim.
3. Whether English courts could exercise jurisdiction over trust disputes relating to property situated outside their territory.

## Decision

- The English High Court held that the claim was in personam and thus outside the scope of Article 16 of the Brussels Convention.
- The European Court of Justice (ECJ) upheld this view, confirming that claims seeking a declaration of beneficial ownership in trust assets are in personam.
- Consequently, the exclusive jurisdiction rule for immovable property under Article 16 did not apply.
- The courts determined that English courts had jurisdiction over the claim, despite the property being situated in France.

## Legal Principles

- Distinction between in rem claims (affecting rights over property) and in personam claims (enforcing personal obligations) is critical for determining jurisdiction in cross-border disputes.
- Article 16 of the Brussels Convention grants exclusive jurisdiction only for in rem claims relating to immovable property.
- Claims enforcing equitable interests in trust assets are generally in personam and not subject to Article 16's exclusive jurisdiction rule.
- The proper forum for cross-border trust litigation depends on the nature of the claim, legal framework, and situs of the trust assets.

## Conclusion

Webb v Webb clarified that cross-border trust disputes involving declarations of beneficial ownership are in personam and do not trigger the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where the property is located under Article 16 of the Brussels Convention, allowing English courts to adjudicate such matters even where the trust property is abroad.


Webb v Webb [1991] 1 WLR 1410 (ChD) [1994] QB 696 (ECJ)