Holliday and Anor v Musa & Ors

A domicile of origin continues unless satisfactory evidence establishes the acquisition and continuance of a domicile of choice. The required intention is an intention to reside indefinitely in the new territory. A clearly foreseen and reasonably anticipated return contingency defeats that intention, but a vague possibility of return or sentiment about dying in the country of origin may be consistent with it. The question at death must be assessed by looking back over the whole of the person's life. Long residence and a family home are strong starting points, but continuing connections with the domicile of origin must be weighed. No single factor should be treated as decisive.

The adult children of Ramadan Hussein Guney appealed from a preliminary issue decision of the High Court of Justice, Family Division. Her Honour Judge Kushner QC held that Ramadan was domiciled in England and Wales when he died, giving the court jurisdiction to entertain Diane Holliday's claim for financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The appellants argued that he had never abandoned his domicile of origin in Cyprus. The appeal concerned whether the judge had applied the correct domicile test and whether the evidence established an intention to settle indefinitely in England.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that Ramadan was domiciled in England and Wales at the date of his death.

1. The only issue was whether, at some stage before his death, Ramadan had formed the intention to reside indefinitely in England and thereby abandoned his domicile of origin in Cyprus. Questions about whether his domicile of origin was Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot, or whether an English domicile of choice had later been abandoned, did not arise.
2. The court approved and applied the principles discussed in Agulian v Cyganik [2006] EWCA Civ 129 and Re Fuld [1968] P 675. The domicile of origin persists unless displaced by satisfactory evidence of a domicile of choice. A domicile of choice requires residence in the new territory with an intention, formed independently of external pressures, to reside there indefinitely. A clearly foreseen return contingency is inconsistent with that intention, whereas a vague possibility of return or sentiment about the country of origin may not be.
3. The question must be answered at the date of death by looking back over the whole of the person's life. It cannot be decided in stages, and individual factors must not be isolated and treated as decisive. Long residence and a family home provide a strong starting point, but continuing connections with the domicile of origin must be weighed and the court must consider whether the person had finally made up his or her mind.
4. The trial judge's primary findings were not challenged. Although the Court of Appeal had to reconsider the inferences about intention, it respected the judge's advantage in seeing and hearing the witnesses and did not discard her assessment altogether.
5. The evidence showed 48 years of residence in England, family homes there, and no permanent home in Cyprus. Ramadan's declarations that he intended to retire in Cyprus were treated as cautious evidence and reflected a vague intention which had not materialised. His English family life, plans for a larger English home, diary entries, and arrangements for burial in England supported an intention to settle there permanently and indefinitely. The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the High Court's conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 30 March 2010, dismissed the appeal and upheld the finding that Ramadan was domiciled in England and Wales at death.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: On 19 March 2009, Her Honour Judge Kushner QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, held on a preliminary issue that Ramadan was domiciled in England and Wales at death.