Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
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