References: (1854) 18 Beav 552, (1854) Kay 341
Ratio: General Forbes died. It became necessary to decide what was his domicile at the date of death. He had been born in Scotland, but then served for 35 years in India, before retirng to live in London.
Held: The domicile in India was a domicile of choice, and it was easier to show a change of domicile of choice than for a domicile of origin. The court declined to make an order with respect to a case of a gift to build a bridge over the River Don in Scotland. This was in effect an issue of Scottish charity law, and the Scottish courts would have jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary and others Sixth CA (Times 24-Sep-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2239)
The High Court had found the plaintiff to be a charity, and ordered the Attorney-General to be joined in. The A-G appealed that order saying that the plaintiff was not a charity within the 1993 Act. The charity sought to spread the Vaishnava . . - Cited – Agulian and Another v Cyganik CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 129)
The question was whether the deceased had lost his domicile of birth and acquired one of choice when living and working in the UK for 43 years. He had retained land in Cyprus, but lived here.
Held: He had retained his domicile of birth: . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 24 May 2020
Ref: 200670