The trial at first instance on the full facts ([1995] 1 WLR 978, before Millett J) had taken "the best part of a year, from October 1992 to July 1993".

Then, without MacMillan's consent or knowledge, the shares were mortgaged by Bishopsgate to secure loans from three different financial institutions to fund Maxwell's private interests.

[8][5] Accordingly, although it was named as the first defendant in the action, Bishopsgate played little part – the main dispute was fought between Macmillan and the banks who had loaned money to Robert Maxwell on the strength of the Berlitz shares as collateral.

The central issue in the case was who had better title to the shares: MacMillan as beneficiary under a trust, or the financial institutions as mortgagees.

The only previous case relating to this issue (Colonial Bank Ltd v Cady and Williams (1890) 15 App Cas 267) had been decided over a century before, followed by an "astonishing period of legal barrenness in judicial and academic consideration".

The case was conducted largely under the assumption was that if New York law determined title, then the banks would win because they had no actual notice of wrongdoing.

But if English law determined title, then Macmillan had an arguable case that the banks had constructive notice of Robert Maxwell's fraud on the grounds they ought to have known he was engaging in fraud when he caused the shares to be mortgaged for the benefit of loans to his private businesses.

[9] At the end of his judgment, Millett J castigated the complexity and expense in relation to the way the arguments were put: The trial began on 26 October 1992.

Regrettably, for brevity key parts of the decision relating to recharacterisation (which were not challenged on appeal) were left unreported.

He reviewed Cady in some detail and confessed to finding it difficult to draw the boundaries between the issues being discussed.

There may be cases where it is arguably the law of the place where the share register is kept, but that problem does not arise today.

The reference is to the domestic law of the place in question; at one time there was an argument for renvoi, but mercifully (or sadly, as the case may be) that has been abandoned.

He eventually concluded that "even if the facts could support a claim for unjust enrichment, it is the issue that determined the matter.

Conversely the banks argued that this was an issue as to who had the better priority to the shares as a matter of property law.

As with the other judges in the Court of Appeal, Aldous LJ felt that this was an issue of property law.

Macmillan argued for an entirely separate choice of law issue relating to a different characerisation.

And the comments of the Court of Appeal in relation to the situs of shares all agreed that they were located in New York, but expressed somewhat different views as to why that was so.

[28][29] She favours the view of Aldous LJ who implies that the situs of a share, even when negotiable, is the place of the company's incorporation.

Maisie Ooi in her definitive work on the subject expresses discomfort in relation to the parts of the judgment which refer to the situs of shares being determined by the place of the register.

[12] The Supreme Court endorsed the decision in Akers v Samba Financial Group [2017] UKSC 6.

Notably Lord Sumption summarised its effects as "transmission of property is governed by the lex situs, which in the case of registered shares is the law of the company's incorporation...

This proposition is well established and was not seriously disputed: see Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (No 3) [1996] 1 WLR 387."

Lord Mance also referred to the decision with approval, but did not comment specifically on the lex situs of shares.

The case was also cited as authoritative for its proposition in relation to the choice of law process in Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG v Five Star General Trading LLC [2001] EWCA Civ 68, [2001] QB 825 In Dornoch Ltd v Westminster International BV [2009] EWHC 889 (Admlty) Tomlinson J suggested that the conflicting decisions in Macmillan as to the situs of the shares are actually misconstrued.

In his judgment he noted that: The reasoning in Macmillan cannot of course be understood without paying careful attention to the characterisation of the issue to which it was directed.