Succession Law in UK Law

Under this conception a new person or entity continues the personality of another. All the rights and liabilities of the former are automatically transferred to and vested in the latter. The new person or entity succeeds " per universitatem "and not by a series of particular acts to each item of property.

For this reason alone it comes as no surprise that the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia decided (see their Report No. 51 (1981) at pp. 68 et seq.) not to recommend the adoption of any such provision in that Province, though they also considered (at p. 72) that the New Zealand statutory provision "goes far beyond what is required".

I have considerable difficulty in seeing why it should make sense to try any of these questions as preliminary issues on general case management grounds. The first three of those questions would only arise if it were held that the deceased died domiciled in Saudi Arabia.

If, on the hearing of the putative preliminary issue, the English court were to come to the conclusion that the Will was void in Islamic law for either of the reasons advanced, that would not be an end of the matter. The court would then be faced with the question whether to make the orders sought pending the trial of the domicile question. Relevant Islamic jurisdictions for this purpose were jurisdictions in which the deceased's assets were now situate.

It is common ground that the deceased was a Saudi Arabian national at the date of his death. It is common ground that, so far as the Saudi Arabian court is concerned, succession to moveables situated in Saudi Arabia would be governed by Saudi Arabian law. It is common ground that Saudi Arabian law will not recognise a decision of an English court and that there is no treaty between this country and Saudi Arabia for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments.

Let me take first the case where there is a disposition of moveable property by will. There is no doubt that the proper law regulating the disposition of movables is the law of the domicile of the testator at the time of his death. In the leading case on this subject Lord Cranworth used the word "regulate" in this very connection.

As explained above, the concept of “a stable employment relationship” in the context of time limits for equal pay claims emerged in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Preston. That was a case of a succession of contracts with breaks between the contracts.