|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges) >> Pierburg v Pierburg  EWFC 24 (11 April 2019)
Cite as:  3 All ER 551,  EWFC 24,  WLR(D) 226
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [View ICLR summary:  WLR(D) 226] [Help]
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
Mr Lewis Marks QC, Mr Stewart Leech QC and Ms Elizabeth Clarke for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 8th to 11th April 2019
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE MOOR:-
The relevant history
(a) In whose territory:-
- the spouses are habitually resident; or
- the spouses were last habitually resident, insofar as one of them still resides there; or
- the respondent is habitually resident; or
- in the event of a joint application, either of the spouses is habitually resident; or
- the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least a year immediately before the application was made; or
- the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least six months immediately before the application was made and….in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, has his or her "domicile" there;
(b) ….in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, of the "domicile" of both spouses.
The respective contentions
The law on domicile
(a) A person is, in general, domiciled in the country in which he is considered by English law to have his permanent home. A person may, sometimes, be domiciled in a country although he does not have his permanent home in it.
(b) No person can be without a domicile.
(c) No person can, at the same time for the same purpose, have more than one domicile.
(d) An existing domicile is presumed to continue until it is proved that a new domicile has been acquired.
(e) Every person receives at birth a domicile of origin.
(f) Every independent person can acquire a domicile of choice by the combination of residence and an intention of permanent or indefinite residence, but not otherwise.
(g) Any circumstance that is evidence of a person's residence, or of his intention to reside permanently or indefinitely in a country, must be considered in determining whether he has acquired a domicile of choice.
(h) In determining whether a person intends to reside permanently or indefinitely, the court may have regard to the motive for which residence was taken up, the fact that residence was not freely chosen, and the fact that residence was precarious.
(i) A person abandons a domicile of choice in a country by ceasing to reside there and by ceasing to intend to reside there permanently, or indefinitely, and not otherwise.
(j) When a domicile of choice is abandoned, a new domicile of choice may be acquired, but, if it is not acquired, the domicile of origin revives.
The Marinos/Munro debate
The factual evidence I heard
(a) When did the Wife become habitually resident in England and Wales?
(b) Did she become resident here on a different date (if I am wrong about Marinos)?
(c) Is she domiciled here?
Mr Justice Moor
11 April 2019