International Divorce and Recognition of Foreign Judgments: The Turin Court of Appeal Rejects the Financial Order Issued by the London Family Court

On 24 February 2025, the Court of Appeal of Turin upheld the defence presented by solicitors Alessandro Gravante and Emanuele Castiglia from Giambrone & Partners, rejecting the request for recognition and enforcement in Italy of a Financial Order issued by the Family Court at West London, within the context of an international divorce proceeding.

A Complex Case of Jurisdiction and Conflict of Laws

The Turin Court of Appeal, by decree dated 24/02/2025, dismissed the request for enforcement in Italy of a Financial Order issued during an English divorce proceeding by the Family Court at West London.
The Financial Order was part of a wider series of legal disputes between the parties, both in Italy and in England. These included legal proceedings for separation and later divorce in Italy, simultaneous divorce and child custody proceedings in England, and further cases in Italy concerning the financial arrangements between the former spouses.

This case involved a complex web of legal actions between the two ex-spouses, ongoing in both Italy and the UK. In particular, the Turin Court had already ordered the ex-wife to pay the ex-husband:

• €177,000 for funds unlawfully withdrawn from a joint bank account;

• £156,000 in damages relating to an uncompleted property sale agreement.

Later, in the course of the English divorce, the Family Court issued a Financial Order ordering the ex-husband to pay:

• £350,000, contingent on him withdrawing the pending proceedings in Italy;

• A one-off payment for any interest and legal costs that may have arisen in the Italian proceedings;

• An additional sum of £421,000.

Rejection of the Request to Enforce the Financial Order in Italy

Among these proceedings, the husband had initiated a claim before the Turin Court seeking restitution of funds unlawfully withdrawn by the ex-wife from a joint account that was, in fact, solely his.
In the same action, he also requested reimbursement of a loan and damages for the failure to finalise a property purchase agreement in London. The couple had signed a preliminary contract while still married, but the deal fell through due to the wife’s refusal to proceed with the obligations, following their separation.

The Turin Court subsequently ruled in favour of the husband, ordering the ex-wife to pay €177,000 for the unlawfully withdrawn funds and £156,000 in damages for the forfeited deposit on the property.

The ex-wife appealed this decision.

Meanwhile, during the English divorce proceedings, the London Family Court issued a Financial Order which – acknowledging the ongoing Italian proceedings, and in particular the judgment that ordered the ex-wife to pay €177,000 and £155,796 – required the ex-husband to pay the ex-wife £350,000.

However, the English court stated this amount would not be due if the ex-husband abandoned or withdrew the Italian case in which the wife had been ordered to pay damages.

The Financial Order further stated that the ex-husband should pay a one-off amount equivalent to any interest and/or legal expenses the ex-wife might be ordered to pay in the Italian proceedings, also subject to waiver if he discontinued the case.

In addition, the Financial Order required the ex-husband to pay the ex-wife a further £421,000.

The ex-wife subsequently turned to the Turin Court of Appeal seeking recognition and enforcement of the Financial Order in Italy under Articles 26 and 27 of EU Regulation No. 4/2009.

The ex-husband opposed the request, arguing that the claim did not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009, as it did not concern maintenance obligations.

He further contended that recognising the English order would violate international public policy, as it would effectively nullify the credit established by the Turin Court in his favour. He argued that the English decision applied principles of family and maintenance law to a matter that was clearly of a financial and compensatory nature, disregarding the jurisdiction of the Italian courts and interfering with a final and binding Italian judgment.

He claimed that the English order was incompatible with another ruling issued between the same parties in Italy.

The Turin Court of Appeal agreed with the ex-husband’s arguments and rejected the ex-wife’s request for enforcement of the Financial Order issued by the Family Court at West London, ordering her to pay the legal costs.

The Court found the application for recognition of the Financial Order inadmissible under Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009, on the grounds that:

• The obligation in question was not of a maintenance nature but concerned financial and compensatory claims;

• The English ruling conflicted with the authority and effects of the Italian judgments, in breach of international public policy;

• The English judge’s ruling effectively annulled a final Italian judgment, imposing conditions prejudicial to the ex-husband’s financial rights.

The Court also referenced the well-known EU Court of Justice ruling in Van de Boogaard v. Laumen, highlighting that the distinction between maintenance and property obligations must be based on the intent of the order. In this case, the aim of the Financial Order was not to support the ex-wife’s living needs, but to compensate her for sums already subject to civil litigation in Italy.

Specifically, the Court of Appeal of Turin, siding with the ex-husband, held that the Financial Order could not be enforced under the framework of Regulation No. 4/2009, as it did not concern maintenance rights but rather a claim by the ex-wife for funds to purchase a home in the UK to live in with her daughter.

On the merits, the Court noted that the English judge had effectively revisited the debt acknowledged by the Italian Court of Turin and ordered the ex-husband to pay an amount (£350,000) that essentially matched the sum the ex-wife had been ordered to pay him, barring the case’s withdrawal.

The Court found that the English judge had issued a ruling that interfered with the Italian judgment, annulling its effects, and exceeding their jurisdiction, since the Italian court had first been seized to resolve a dispute unrelated to family law but concerning claims for restitution and compensation.

Furthermore, the Financial Order annulled the effect of prior Italian court decisions by ordering the ex-husband to pay a one-off amount equivalent to any interest and court costs awarded against the ex-wife in Italy. It also required the ex-husband to cancel a precautionary seizure order over the ex-wife’s Italian bank account, previously granted by the Italian court in support of the husband’s credit claims.

For these reasons, the Turin Court of Appeal rejected the ex-wife’s request to declare the Financial Order enforceable in Italy.

The Value of an Integrated International Legal Approach

The rejection of the enforcement request confirms the importance of a solid legal defence in the field of private international law and highlights the need to safeguard Italian jurisdiction against potentially prejudicial foreign decisions.

The lawyers at Giambrone & Partners provide specialist legal advice in international family law, enforcement of foreign judgments, separation and divorce involving spouses of different nationalities, and cross-border disputes.

Contact us today for personalised advice from one of our international law experts.