Summary
The claimant, who is Uzbek by birth, resided in Israel. The defendant was a Russian national who owned a house in London. The claimant sought a declaration that the defendant held 20 per cent of the shares in a Russian company on trust for the claimant. The claim form was served on the defendant’s employee on 26th Nov 2006 at the defendant’s property in London. One of the key questions was whether the defendant was English resident. The standard of proof was a “good arguable case”. It was held that the English court had no jurisdiction because the claimant failed to demonstrate the defendant was domiciled in England. In this context, Mr Justice Langley held that:
“44 There is no dispute that Mr Deripaska is resident in Moscow (or Russia) but this factor and the visits to England of himself and his wife are, Mr Brisby submitted, sufficient for him to be resident in England also.
45 In agreement with Eady J., I do not accept this submission. It is not a numbers game, although the numbers hardly support Mr Cherney's case. The “quality” of the use of the house is, I think, equally important. In many ways its use by Mr Deripaska resembles that of a private hotel. It is infrequent, intermittent, and generally fleeting. The house has the character of continuity and permanence; its use does not. It cannot, I think, in any normal sense of those words, be described as a “settled or usual place of abode” of Mr Deripaska. In my judgment, as at November 26, 2006, Mr Cherney has failed to show a good arguable case that Mr Deripaska was resident at 5, Belgrave Square and so domiciled there for the purposes of the Jurisdiction Regulation and Judgment Order . It is therefore unnecessary to consider the second limb of para.9(2) of the Judgment Order (para.13) but it requires the nature and circumstances of the “residence” to indicate a substantial connection with this country and so on my findings cannot be fulfilled. The same applies to para.9(6).” [44-45]
That said, the dispute reached the High Court again in 2008 when an application for a service of the claim form out of jurisdiction was made under English common law. In a judgment rendered 3rd July 2008, Mr Justice Clarke gave permission for the claim form to be served out of the jurisdiction under English traditional rules.