header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 October 2013 / Clare Arthurs , Richard Marshall
Issue: 7578 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Better connected

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
istock_000002498266medium

When it comes to forum shopping, every little (fact) counts, say Richard Marshall & Clare Arthurs

London appears increasingly popular as a centre for international litigation, particularly among litigants from the former Soviet Republic. You might be forgiven for thinking that international litigants have open access to the UK courts, irrespective of how tenuous the connection might be between the circumstances of their case and this jurisdiction. Recent cases however suggest that international forum shoppers may now be swimming against the tide.

View from the top

In VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] All ER (D) 47 (Feb) the Supreme Court refused VTB Capital (VTB) permission to serve proceedings outside the jurisdiction, on the basis that England was not the proper forum for the resolution of the dispute. It was not however a clear cut decision: Lord Clarke and Lord Reed dissented from the majority view, held by Lords Neuberger, Mance and Wilson. Unpicking these judgments provides useful guidance on how the courts will approach the thorny issue

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll