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
The Legal Rights and Wrongs of Puberty Blocking in England
Hannah Hirst, PhD student, University of Liverpool, School of Law and Social JusticeKeywords: Puberty blockers – children’s rights – access to health – UNCRC –...
Re M (Special Guardianship Order: Leave To Apply To Discharge) [2021] EWCA Civ 442
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Peter Jackson, Baker, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 26 March 2021)Public Law Children – Special guardianship – Leave to apply to discharge SGO – Refusal...
AB v CD & Ors [2021] EWHC 741 (Fam)
(Family Division, Lieven J, 26 March 2021)Medical treatment - Gender Dysphoria – Consent – Young person prescribed puberty blockers – Decision in Bell – Whether parents could...
Re H-N And Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), President, King, Holroyde LJJ, 30 March 2021)Private law children - Domestic Abuse – Fact finding – ApproachThe Court of Appeal provided guidance in four...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
View all articles
Authors

DOMICILE: R v R (Divorce: Jurisdiction: Domicile) [2006] 1 FLR 389

Sep 29, 2018, 17:04 PM
Slug : r-v-r-divorce-jurisdiction-domicile-2006-1-flr-389
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 2, 2005, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85547

(Family Division; Philip Sapsford QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge; 2 September 2005)

The wife was not prevented from asserting a French domicile by her first acknowledgement of service. The content of a petition did not confer jurisdiction, nor did the failure to assert a sustainable jurisdictional basis deprive the court of jurisdiction, if it existed on grounds other than those pleaded. Domicile cannot be acquired or retained by a mere declaration of the parties. In determining whether the wife had acquired a domicile of choice, the question was whether she had formed a positive intention to make a new home in France for an indefinite time. The court held that residence is persuasive from which to infer an intention to remain but does not have effect on its own. The court held there was little other than residence to infer a real connection with France. It had not been proved, even upon a balance of probabilities, with clearness and satisfaction that the wife had formed a fixed and settled intention to abandon her English domicile of origin and settle permanently in France. The standard of proof is not equivalent to criminal law and the position is still summarised by the President, Sir Jocelyn Simon P in Henderson v Henderson [1967] P 77 in that the standard of proof goes beyond a mere balance of probabilities. The less probable an asserted fact, the more cogent is the evidence needed to prove it.

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