In 889457 Alberta Inc v Katanga Mining Ltd – Lawtel 11.11.08 the Commercial Court, in ongoing proceedings in which the Claimant company sought interim relief restraining the Defendants from disposing of certain shares, the court held on the evidence, that the central administration of a Bermudan company was in London and so it was domiciled in England for the purposes of Regulation 44/2001 art. 60 with the result that the English court could not decline to exercise its jurisdiction over it on grounds of forum non conveniens.
It was established that central administration did not necessarily mean the same as central management and control, and central administration and principal place of business were plainly intended in the Regulation to be alternatives, not necessarily to be found in the same place.
In the circumstances of the instant case, having regard to the natural and intended reading of the Regulation, the first Defendant's centre of administration was in the UK. Moreover, the court's power to permit service on the necessary or proper party was no less wide than the court's power to add or substitute a party; accordingly, the second and third Defendants had been properly served.
The UK, and not the Democratic Republic of Congo, was clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute.