Summary
The claimants were involved in the aluminium business. They sued the defendant, Mr Deripaska, in England. The value of the claim was over $30 million. The events giving rise to the damage appeared to have taken place in Russia in 1995 when the defendant allegedly intended to damage the claimants’ business.
The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the English court. In order to establish jurisdiction in England, they had to show a “good arguable case” that the defendant was domiciled in England. The defendant’s jurisdictional challenge was upheld by the English High Court. Mr Justice Eady stated that:
“25 […] It seems to me that it must be a question of fact and degree in each case, according to the appropriate standard of proof. No doubt in many cases it would be relatively easy to draw an inference of residence from the possession of a substantial house in this jurisdiction. Here, however, the total picture permits no such inference. There are footholds in several jurisdictions which are there for convenience when it is necessary to hold business meetings. They may perhaps also have some incidental value as investments, but the uses to which they are put suggest to me that they are "stopovers" rather than homes in any conventional sense. Mr Deripaska's visits to England can generally be classified as merely ancillary to the conduct of his Russian businesses.” [2006] EWHC 3276 [25].