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.
(1854) 18 Beav 552, (1854) Kay 341, [1854] EngR 317, (1854) 18 Beav 552, (1854) 52 ER 216
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Forbes v Forbes 9-Feb-1854
A man cannot have two domicils, at least with reference to the succession to his personal estate.
Legitimate children acquire by birth the domicil of their father.
An infant cannot change his domicil by his own act.
A new domicil . .
Cited by:
Cited – Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary CA 30-Jul-1997
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 24-Feb-2006
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.293174
