Sekhri v Ray (Rev 1)

For domicile purposes, residence and intention must be assessed together in their factual context. A domicile of choice is abandoned only when the person ceases both to reside in the country and to intend to reside there permanently or indefinitely. A temporary move abroad does not, by itself, displace an existing domicile of choice. The court must determine the relevant facts and apply the law; the issue is not one of discretion. A domicile of origin is more enduring than a domicile of choice, so more powerful and cogent evidence is required to establish that it has been displaced.

The wife petitioned for divorce in England while both parties were habitually resident in Singapore. She contended that both parties, or at least one of them, was domiciled in England and Wales when the petition was issued. The husband disputed that contention and challenged the court’s jurisdiction. The principal issues were whether the husband had an English domicile of origin derived from his father, whether the wife had acquired an English domicile of choice, and whether either domicile had been lost following the parties’ move to Singapore.

1. Jurisdiction. The court held that both parties were domiciled in England and Wales on 20 August 2012. The English court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the wife’s divorce petition.
2. Husband’s domicile. The husband’s father had acquired an English domicile of choice by, at the latest, July 1971. His settled intention after returning from an unsuccessful period in India was to live in England with his wife and children. That was the husband’s domicile when he was born and accordingly his domicile of origin. The husband accepted that he had never acquired a domicile of choice elsewhere capable of displacing it.
3. Wife’s domicile of choice. The wife had acquired an English domicile of choice well before December 2008. Her residence, career, home, personal preferences and settled intention showed a distinctive and indefinite connection with England.
4. Abandonment. Applying the principles summarised by Arden LJ in Barlow Clowes International Limited v Henwood [2008] EWCA Civ 77, and the rule stated in Dicey, a domicile of choice is lost only when both residence and the intention to reside permanently or indefinitely are given up. The wife’s move to Singapore was understood by her as a finite period or career episode. She retained her English home and professional connections and continued to intend to return to England. She had therefore not abandoned her English domicile of choice.
5. The issues were factual and legal rather than discretionary. The court invited submissions on the further progress of the divorce petition, which had not been defended by an answer.