Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles
Authors

DIVORCE JURISDICTION: Mark v Mark [2005] UKHL 42

Sep 29, 2018, 17:04 PM
Slug : mark-v-mark-2005-ukhl-42
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 11, 2005, 06:43 AM
Article ID : 85607

(House of Lords; Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Baroness Hale of Richmond; 30 June 2005) [2005] 2 FLR 1193

The husband and wife each had Nigerian domiciles of origin. The wife obtained multiple entry visas to the UK. The wife overstayed and her continued presence in the UK was an offence under the Immigration Act 1971, ss 24(1)(b) and 24A. In July 2000 the wife had issued a divorce petition and an application for ancillary relief in London. The House of Lords held that the courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction to entertain the wife's petition both on the basis of her habitual residence here for the requisite period and on the basis of her acquisition of a domicile of choice here. Habitual residence for the purpose of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, s 5(2) did not have to be lawful residence. Habitual residence and ordinary residence were interchangeable concepts: Ikimi v Ikimi [2002] Fam 72. The question of whether residence was habitual was a factual one to be determined by applying the test of Lord Scarman in Shah v Barnet London Borough Council [1983] 2 AC 309. The legality of a person's residence might be relevant to that factual question, although such cases would be rare. Per curiam: There would be other statutory provisions, in particular those conferring entitlement to some benefit from the State, where it would be possible to imply a requirement that the residence be lawful. As a matter of principle, a domicile of choice was established by the coincidence of residence and animus manendi. There was no reason in principle why a person whose presence in this country was illegal could not acquire a domicile of choice here. The objective of the rules determining domicile was to discover the system of law with which the propositus was most closely connected for matters regarding property and status. Domicile was a neutral rule of law and did not necessarily benefit the propositus. To recognise domicile as a connecting factor despite the illegality of the propositus presence would therefore not offend against the general principle that a person could not be permitted to benefit from his own criminal conduct. The legality of a person's presence in a country could be relevant to the factual question of whether the requisite animus manendi had been formed. Per Lord Hope of Craighead: cases where a question of public law was in issue had to be distinguished from cases where the issue was one of private law. The importance of that distinction had not always been recognised. Private law issues were referred to the law of a person's domicile. Illegality of presence was relevant to the question whether a person had the intention to reside in a country indefinitely, but not the question whether the person was present here.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from