"A UK court recently concluded that even when there’s ample evidence demonstrating connections to another state, UK courts may nonetheless affirm their own jurisdiction, if there are at least some connections providing a basis to do so... According to the court, while the jurisdiction dispute generated a “depressingly vast amount of material” and “clearly left no stone unturned,” the evidence was sufficient for Tugushev to successfully resist Orlov’s challenge and demonstrate a “good arguable case” that Orlov was domiciled in England and, in turn, that the court had jurisdiction to hear Tugushev’s claims.
While the court found that Orlov spends the majority of his time in Russia, it nonetheless concluded that England is a “settled and usual place of abode” for Orlov on the basis of evidence that, among other things, Orlov owns two flats in England, had recently made significant payments in respect of the properties (although had spent just 56 days in England in 2017, and 25.5 days in England up to the July 23, 2018 freeze order)...
...there would seem to be no a priori reason why any plaintiff should not be allowed to sue in the jurisdiction seen as most favorable to advancing its claim... More recently, Canadian courts have confirmed their willingness to assert jurisdiction in novel circumstances,"
The more lucre the better?
Welcome to your first day on-board DaisyBlack666.
https://fcpablog.com/2019/04/16/practice-alert-uk-court-accepts-jurisdiction-in-hotly-contes/