(Australia – New South Wales) The fact that a party’s residence in New South Wales was unlawful, prevented the acquisition of a domicile of choice there. ‘It is a curious proposition that a Court of Justice in New South Wales should hold that a man has acquired a domicile in New South Wales when the laws of the land forbid that man to be here.’ The man’s Australian wife was unable to obtain a divorce from her husband, then in prison for rape, because he was a South Sea Islander who had come to and remained in Australia in defiance of laws which prohibited South Sea Islanders from doing so, and indeed had been on his way to be deported when he committed the offence for which he was then in prison.
Judges:
Gordon J
Citations:
(1912) 29 WN(NSW) 68
Jurisdiction:
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Mark v Mark HL 30-Jun-2005
The petitioner sought to divorce her husband. Both were Nigerian nationals, and had married under a valid polygamous marriage in Nigeria. She claimed that the courts had jurisdiction because of her habitual residence here despite the fact that her . .
Not persuasive – Jablonowski v Jablonowski 1972
(Ontario High Court) The petitioner had met both the residence and animus requirements despite having entered Canada illegally. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.228179