423555
| Question | Answer |
| Domicile determined per the lex fori | Re Annesley 1926 English Chancery |
| Lord Wesbury in Udny v Udny 1869 re DO/DC | DO "revives" regardless of intention, when DC abandoned (abandonment requires facto et animus though) |
| Udny v Udny 1869 Facts | Colonel born 1779 in Italy to Scots diplomat so Scots DO; Lived short time in Edin but commissioned in Scots Guards in 1797; left army:1812-1842 lived in London then moved to Fr to escape creditors; fathered illegitimate child in Fr (respondent) in 1853 but returned to Scotland and married there in 1954. HELD: either retained DO throughout or DO revived when he left Eng in 1842; marriage rendered child legit (per subsequens matrimonium) under Scots law so he could inherit. |
| In UK, when DC abandoned, DO revives (Udny), but in USA, X, and Y, ... | Australian, NZ, DC remains until new DC acquired |
| Brookes v Brookes Trustees. | Court considers all relevant factors that might throw light on factus et animus; while residence itself is a very useful indicator of intention, it is but one of many |
| Assertion of domicile is not overly persuasive. One factor among many. Cases? | Re Annesley Reddington v Riach's Execs |
| place of funeral not persuavice, but one factor among many. Case? | Spence v Spence |
| Construction o a home quite a good indicator of degree of permanence intended. Case? | In Re Flynn: DO in Oz droped for DC in Jamaica: built home there |
| Building a home and spending your working life in a new LS is good indicator of DC. Case? | LA v Brown Scot moved to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) |
| Even marriage, burial arrangements, living, working, in purported DC, not always enough where social circle remained ex-pat Brits (esp Scots). Onus of proof on party averring DC | Spence v Spence |
| Continued cultural/social links to DO will tend to maintain it: CASE? But short rtn visits to DO will seldom undermine a DC: Case? short visits | Spence v Spence: Scot who moved to Spain retained DO; LA v Brown: Scot who moved to Ceylon adopted DC |
| Where a person has a lifestyle that involves significant periods in different countries, establishing a single DC in favour of the DO may prove difficult (case?), but not insurmountable (Case?); | In re Fuld; In re Flynn |
| Man born of Scots parents domd in Jamaica moved to Sc after, to his distaste, slaves emancipated in J. Wife dies soon after at tempus inspiciendum where still unsettled as to DC (Sc too cold). Case ans conclusion? | Bell v Kennedy: DO retained so daughter, who had claim to mum's estate viz Sc law had none viz J law. (Note Wife's dom followed husband's) |
| where it is difficult to ascertain a point in time where a DO has been abandoned, it may be deemed to have subsisted (case?). | In re Fuld: German DO, moved to England, Canada, England, Germany (where he built a home, divorced, died) |
| Burden of proof re change from DO to DC may extend beyond the balance of probabilities: 2 cases? | In re Fuld; Munro v Munro 2007 |
| In Re Fuld: Burden of proof clear, but standard of proof? 2007 case also? | where the "judicial conscience" is not satisfied by evidence of change, DO persists; Munro v Munro |
| Unless intention to move from DO to DC clear, and free of significant indicators of doubt, unlikely to be upheld | Cyganik v Agulian Greek Cyriot DO-->Eng@18, died there 43 years later; had expressed doubt about remaining there; maintained links to GC community; HELD: OVER LIFETIME, cumulative effect of ev did not point unequivocally to intention to live in Eng indefinitely. |
| Tax case re Eng DO who claimed Seychelles DC but maintained significant links to DO and had house in third LS | Gaines-Cooper v Revenue & Customs Commissioners: S: house, business, declared in will Eng: house, marriage (wife from Sey), she sought British "naturalisation"); kid schooled there; House in California also. |
| In re Fuld Facts? | German DO born 1921, interned Eng 1939 and then Canada 1940; acquired Can nationality in 1946; till death in Germany in 1962 was based in Eng + Germany, where he built a house; 1/6 of estate in Eng so Eng Ct had jur. Held: DO unchanged. |
| DO adhesive? case? | Winans v AG 1904 |
| Doubts expressed re being settled will not help prove DC, case? | Cyganik v Agulian |
| soldier, diplomat, employee posed abroad will not per se warrant DC (case?), however it is the decision to settle, not the reason that is key (case) | Campbell v Campbell Fairbairn v Neville |
| DO of legit child from father, case? | Udny v Udny |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.