The Defendant was the sole owner of a property in Kingston, but denied that he was domiciled in the UK.
Held: Residence was established. The house was one of his real residences at the relevant time. He apparently came to England regularly, about once a month, and was registered for council tax and utility bills. Patten J said: ‘The Kingston property is his home when he lives in England . . One can have a residence in more than one place and domicile under the statutory definition depends on residence, not on the old common law test of where one intended to permanently reside in the sense of indefinitely and exclusively’.
Judges:
Patten J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 1585
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – High Tech International Ag and others v Deripaska QBD 20-Dec-2006
The clamants brought actions for damages for torts said to have been committed by the defendants in Russia. They said that the defendant was domiciled within the jurisdiction under the EU Regulation.
Held: Domicile for the issue of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.464219