Spotlight
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
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Will government vouchers prove a game-changer for family mediation?
Analysis of data to evaluate the government’s £500 family mediation voucher scheme is in full swing. It’s not yet complete but, as the initiative nears an end, the signs appear...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
Recently, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making misogyny a...
Guidance on allocation and gatekeeping for public children proceedings to remain in place
On 5 June 2020, the President of the Family Division made two amendments to his Guidance on Allocation and Gatekeeping for Care, Supervision and other Proceedings under Part IV of the Children...
Key challenges and the role of the family advisor in facilitating a successful succession plan
Kelly Noel-Smith, Private Client Partner, Forsters LLPRosie Schumm, Family Partner, Forsters LLPAnna Ferster, Family Associate, Forsters LLPHow best to pass on wealth to the next generation is a...
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