Kebbeh v Farmer & Ors

For a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975, the deceased must have been domiciled in England and Wales at death. Domicile of choice requires residence combined with a fixed intention to reside permanently or indefinitely. The court must evaluate the whole of the deceased’s life and conduct, giving appropriate caution to declarations of intention. Citizenship, business interests, assets, family connections and visits to another country are relevant but not decisive. A person may retain substantial connections with one country while acquiring a domicile of choice elsewhere. On the evidence, the deceased’s settled home and indefinite intention were in Gambia, so the statutory jurisdiction was absent.

The claimant, the deceased’s second wife, sought reasonable financial provision from his estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975. The deceased’s will made no provision for her. The defendants contended that he died domiciled in Gambia and therefore fell outside section 1(1) of the Act, which applies only where a person dies domiciled in England and Wales.

The trial was divided because further evidence was required concerning the validity of an alleged Gambian divorce. The court proceeded first with the issue of domicile and concluded that it could determine that issue without resolving the divorce question.

1. Claim dismissed. The deceased died domiciled in Gambia. The court therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim under section 1(1) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act 1975.
2. Domicile of choice required residence in the country together with a fixed intention to reside there permanently or indefinitely. The court had to consider all circumstances bearing on that intention and evaluate the deceased’s life history as a whole. The adhesive nature of a domicile of origin meant that the defendants bore a substantial evidential burden.
3. The deceased had lived mainly in Gambia from 1994, regarded it as his permanent home, wished to spend his final days there and had made a settled life there with his daughter. His conduct supported the relevant intention. Statements of intention were treated cautiously, but were corroborated by conduct.
4. Factors pointing towards England did not outweigh that conclusion. The deceased’s English assets, business interests, English executors, English-form will, visits, resident permits and continuing family connections were relevant but not decisive. His English visits were temporary and largely connected with his daughter. The unsuitable English premises were not a settled home.
5. The court did not need to decide whether the alleged Gambian divorce was legally effective. Even assuming that the marriage continued in law until death, the nature of the relationship and the totality of the evidence did not alter the deceased’s domicile.