Henderson v Henderson: 1967

The court considered what was required to establish a domicile at law: ‘First, clear evidence is required to establish a change of domicile. In particular, to displace the domicile of origin in favour of the domicile of choice, the standard of proof goes beyond a mere balance of probabilities. Where residence however long is neutral or colourless or indeterminate in character, it will not give rise to an inference that the domicile of origin has been abandoned. Secondly, on the other hand, a mere ‘floating intention’ (to adopt the language of Story) to return to the country of origin at some future period is not sufficient for the retention of the domicile of origin if the propositus has settled in some other territory subject to a distinct system of law with the intention of remaining there for an indefinite time.’
References: [1967] P 77
Judges: Simon P
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Sewa Singh Gill and Paramjit Singh Gill CACD 31-Jul-2003
    The appellants sought to challenge their convictions for cheating the Inland Revenue. They were accused of having hidden assets and income from the revenue. The appellants objected to the use at trial of material obtained in a ‘Hansard’ interview. . .
    (, [2003] EWCA Crim 2256, Times 29-Aug-03, Gazette 02-Oct-03)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.185075