Quality not quantity is likely to determine domicile in the English courts, says Steven Francis
The recent High Court litigation involving Roman Abramovich and the development of part of the Priobskoye oil fields, regarded by one oil analyst as the “pearl of Western Siberia”, addresses important issues of jurisdiction in civil fraud cases. As one would expect in a dispute that involves the convoluted methods by which the harvesting of Russia’s natural resources was put into private hands, the judgment is long (136 pages) and the facts complicated.
The case sheds light on English courts’ attitudes to the instigation of UK litigation that covers substantially the same ground as proceedings brought in overseas courts, a particularly aggressive type of forum shopping. It is a reminder of the limitations that arise when attempting to use equitable remedies to recover losses. And it addresses Mr Abramovich’s place of domicile for the purposes of the service of proceedings. The decision of the court was that the claims against Mr Abramovich should be dismissed.
The key characters in the case are a Mr Matevosov and a Mr Davidovich both
