Case Name: Maharanee of Baroda v.

Wildenstein
Citation: (1972) 2 A 11 ER 689 (CA)
Date of Decision:
Origin according to syllabus: Canadian Case
 
Doctrine:
Service of the writ of summons done while the defendant was only on a visit in England does not
raise a presumption that the case was vexatious or oppressive. A tort is territorial in nature but an
issue of genuiness of art (not a tort) between two “citizens of the world” is international in
character and cannot be said to be confined to one territory. The forum where more favorable
evidentiary rules for the plaintiff here played a part in selecting English jurisdiction.
 
Facts:
An Indian princess who was a resident of France, bought for £32,920 in France a painting from
Wildenstein, a French citizen and worldfamous art expert connected with art dealer companies in
London and New York. The painting was claimed to be by François Boucher. The Maharanee
offered it for sale in London. London auction house Sotheby’s showed the painting to English
Art Firm Christie’s said it was not an original Boucher. Normally, the Maharanee was infuriated
and wanted to rescind the sale with damages against seller Wildenstein. They were both French
residents but the Maharanee brought the proceedings to an English Court. The Maharanee had
the papers served personally to Mr. Wildenstein while he was in England watching the races in
Ascot. Wildenstein an unconditional appearance but asked the case to be dismissed as vexatious
and an abuse of the process of the court. The writ was set aside because the judge said there is a
presumption of vexatious or oppressiveness of suit when brought in a court.

Issue:
Can the court properly served the writ of summons in London while Wildenstein was on a visit,
instead of France, where they resided? Yes.
 
Ruling:
In this case the writ has been properly served on the defendant in this country [England]. The
defendant claims that a presumption arises that the proceedings are oppressive if the defendant is
served when he appears to be here in England on a visit. Lord Denning cannot agree with that
statement. There is no such presumption. If a defendant is properly served with a writ while he is
in this country, albeit on a short visit, the plaintiff is prima facie entitled to continue the
proceedings to the end. He has validly invoked the jurisdiction of the Queen's courts; and he is
entitled to require those courts to proceed to adjudicate upon his claim. Since there is no
presumption, the burden is on Mr. Wildenstein to show that he would suffer injustice if the case
is tried in England. He has not shown this. The courts should not strike it out unless it comes
within one of the acknowledged grounds, such as that it is vexatious or oppressive, or otherwise
an abuse of the process of the court. It does not become within those grounds simply because the
writ is served on the defendant while he is on a visit to this country. The art world is so
international in character today that this issue has itself something of an international character.
The parties on either side are citizens of the world. Both parties were "citizens of the world,”
both parties had sufficient social and business ties to England, and the plaintiff had a valid
interest in bringing suit in London and not before the jurisdiction of the legal residence for both
parties. Lastly, In England, both parties are allowed to call expert witnesses on their behalf. The
experts could then clarify their expert opinions and defend their positions during cross-
examination. On the other hand, in France, expert witnesses are appointed by the courts,
evidentiary materials are restricted, and courts are satisfied with only a written opinion; no cross-
examination of the witness takes place. The more favorable--from the Duchess` viewpoint--
evidentiary rules certainly played a role in selecting English jurisdiction.