[1] Essentially, it is a self-imposed rule to limit jurisdiction in respect of actions relating to: In Hesperides Hotels v Muftizade Lord Wilberforce referred to the ruling in Mozambique in the following terms: "Subject to exceptions hereafter mentioned, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action for (1) the determination of title to, or the right to the possession of, any immovable situate out of England (foreign land); or (2) the recovery of damages for trespass to such immovable".

[3] The decision in British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique was based exclusively on the historical development of the circumstances in which, and reasons for which, a court in England would take jurisdiction to hear any matter.

In the 12th and early 13th centuries, the jury in both civil and criminal matters performed a role that resembles the modern day witness rather than as judges of fact.

However, this led to abuses and in the 15th century, the statutes of Richard II and Henry IV reimposed strict requirements of laying the correct venue.

If the matter had arisen outside England (i.e. a foreign locality), the legal fictions employed in transitory actions were not applicable, and so jury could be summoned to try the facts in issue.

For example, in Skinner v East India Co 6 St Tr 710, the House of Lords in 1666, held that actions relating to ships and trespass to the person could be determined in courts in England because they were transitory in nature.

In the Court of Appeal in the Mozambique case, a majority (Fry and Lopes LJJ, Lord Esher dissenting) took a similar view of the effect of that Act.

Vinelott J also reasoned that the grounds to which the courts have hitherto refused to exercise jurisdiction in actions of trespass to land situated abroad was substantial and not technical, and that the distinction was not accordingly affected by the Judicature Acts.