“The rule is stated in Dicey’s Conflict of Laws, 7th edition, Rule 103 as follows:- “A grant of administration or other authority to represent a deceased person under the law of a foreign country (i.e. any country which is not England), has no operation in England.” Its effect was explained by Scrutton, J., in Haas v. Atlas Assurance Company Limited [1913] 2 K.B. 209, in these terms:- “An executor could not assert or rely on his right in any Court without showing that he had previously established it in the Probate Division either by suit, by probate in solemn form, or in the ordinary form. The usual way in which he proved it was by the production of a copy of the will certified under the seal of the Court. That state of the law was described by Jervis C.J., in Johnson v. Warwick 17 C.B. 516, as being that the Court had not the legal optics through which to look at the will until the will was proved in the form provided by English law.” The rule of common law was reinforced by the Revenue Act, 1884, and modified by the Revenue Act, 1889, but these Acts do not, in our view, apply in the Federal territory as statutes of general application, and in any event they have no bearing on the present question. The passage cited from Haas v. Atlas Assurance Company Limited refers to some of the methods by which an executor may establish his right. In addition, probate granted in Northern Ireland, Scotland, or specified parts of the Commonwealth will be recognised by the English Courts if the grant has been resealed in England; See Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd edition Volume 16 pages 256-263. In Nigeria, the Probates (Resealing) Act Cap. 161, makes similar provision, and enables probate granted in any part of the Commonwealth to be resealed in the High Court of Lagos.”
LawCompass
… the Digital Solution Research Tool
