![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Boucher_par_Gustav_Lundberg_1741.jpg/640px-Boucher_par_Gustav_Lundberg_1741.jpg&w=640&q=50)
Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HRH the Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein,[1] was a decision of the English Court of Appeal relating to the conflict of laws, and specifically whether the English courts should take jurisdiction in relation to a claim which had no substantial connections with England on the basis that the defendant was served with proceedings during a brief visit to the country.[2]
Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein | |
---|---|
![]() The French master, François Boucher | |
Court | Court of Appeal |
Full case name | H.R.H. Maharanee Sethadevi Gaekwar of Baroda v Daniel Wildenstein |
Decided | 9 March 1972 |
Citations | [1972] 2 QB 283 [1972] 2 WLR 1077 [1972] 2 All ER 689 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Lord Denning MR Edmund Davies LJ Stephenson LJ |
Keywords | |
forum non conveniens |
The case was decided before the modern development of the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the decision of the House of Lords in Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd,[3] and is no longer considered to be good law in that regard.[2] The case is often still referred to by way of illustration to the parochial and slightly paternalistic view previously taken by the English courts in relation to matters of jurisdiction, and in particular the comments of Lord Denning MR and Edmund Davies LJ.[2]: 6
However the principle established by the case that presence within the jurisdiction is not negated only because it is a short or transient presence remains good law.[4][5]