A more recent version of these Jurisdiction Under English National Rules Cases notes – written by Oxford students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Conflict of Laws Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
JURISDICTION UNDER ENGLISH NATIONAL RULES Service Within Jurisdiction Personal Service Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein 
C wished to serve D, a French art dealer. Validly did so whilst he was on a temporary visit to country attending Ascot races. 'Place of Business' Rakusens Ltd 
Defendant company's business card listed address of that company's agent as D's place of business in the UK. C served claim on this address. Held:?
Service upon place of business of D's agent does not suffice
? must be place of business of D himself On facts, was nothing to suggest that address was that of D rather than simply D's agent.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co 
D ran exhibition at a trade fair in London. Held that this sufficed to make D 'carrying on business' in UK. Thus claim could be served upon it. Cleveland Museum of Art v Capricorn Art International ?
Art dealer's house held to be place of business as it contained works of art Thus document was validly served there.
Lakah Group v Al-Jazeera 
C alleged they had validly served D at their London offices. D had made statements on its website and in interviews to effect that it had an office in London, and a bureau chief in London. Held:?
These statements were to promote D as a broadcaster.
? and NOT for purpose of showing D as a corporate entity operated in London.
? therefore statements had no bearing on whether D had a place of business in UK. A place in which D has no more than a transient or irregular connection is not a 'place of business' of the company for purposes of CPR Rule 6.9.
Service Out of Jurisdiction Procedure and Standards Bas Capital Funding v Medfinco 
Attempt was made to serve a Maltese defendant out of jurisdiction. C made multiple claims, the validity of which D disputed. Held:A small number of contractual claims did have a valid basis.
? thus English courts had jurisdiction to hear this limited number of claims.
? however this did NOT mean English courts had jurisdiction to mean the invalid claims.
Grounds of Jurisdiction Domicile High Tech International v Deripaska 
Issue was whether D, a Russian national, could be said to be resident in England so that the English courts had jurisdiction to hear claims in Russian law against him. D owned two large houses in UK and made frequent visits for business purposes. Held: Facts?
On facts: 1) D owned 20 properties in various countries.
- Thus use to which they were put suggested they were mere 'stopovers'
- And NOT homes 2) D's business trips to UK were ancillary to conduct of his Russian businesses Thus D not resident in UK.
Joinder and Collateral Claims Multinational Gas Co v Multinational Gas Services Ltd 
C sued a subsidiary company in UK, then sought to join parent companies as co-Ds. Was argued that parent companies were not "proper parties" to case, as C's main motive for suing subsidiary was to allow English courts to get jurisdiction over parent companies through joinder as co-Ds. In addition, subsidiary was bankrupt so would be unable to pay any compensation ordered by court. Held:
?????If C's predominant reason for suing D1 is simply to bring D2 into jurisdiction, does not necessarily mean that D2 is not proper party.
? provided there is bona fide good cause of action against D1 in his own right, C's motives for bringing it irrelevant.
? Thus even though D1 is bankrupt, does not mean parent oil companies not proper parties.
? Is not D1's ability to meet judgment that is relevant
? But rather the strength of case against him
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws Notes.