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] 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.

In 1965 the Maharanee purchased a painting from Mr Wildenstein in Paris which was believed to be La Poésie by François Boucher for the equivalent of approximately £33,000.

The Maharanee instructed her solicitors to issue a writ against Mr Wildenstein claiming that painting was not a Boucher and seeking rescission and repayment of the purchase price.

[8]Edmund Davies LJ also stated: ... in taking it out and serving it (albeit when the defendant was only fleetingly on British soil) she [the Maharanee] was doing no more than our law permits, even though it may have ruined his [Mr Wildenstein's] day at the races.

Some might regard her action as bad form; none can legitimately condemn it as an abuse of legal process ...The case is no longer considered good law with respect to taking jurisdiction, and in modern times the decision would likely have been reversed, with a stay being granted on the basis of forum non conveniens.

However the part of the decision that states that any transitory presence within the jurisdiction is still sufficient for the service of a writ remains good law.