Winans v Attorney-General: HL 1904

A domicile of origin can only be replaced by clear cogent and compelling evidence that the relevant person intended to settle permanently and indefinitely in the alleged domicile of choice. A domicile of origin is tenacious; the character of domicile of origin ‘is more enduring, its hold stronger, and less easily shaken off’ than domicile of choice because a change in domicile may involve ‘far reaching consequences in regard to succession and distribution and other things which depend on domicile.’ The question was whether it had ‘with perfect clearness and satisfaction’ been shown that the testator had ‘a fixed and settled purpose’ or ‘a determination’ or ‘a fixed and deliberate intention’ to abandon his American domicile and settle in England.


Lord MacNaghten


[1904] AC 287


England and Wales


CitedWhicker v Hume HL 1858
Lord Cranworth said: ‘in these days, when the tendency of the educated and leisured classes is to become cosmopolitan – if I may use the word – you must look very narrowly into the nature of the residence suggested as a domicil of choice before you . .

Cited by:

CitedAgulian 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: . .
CitedBarlow Clowes International Ltd and Others v Henwood CA 23-May-2008
The receiver appealed against an order finding that the debtor petitioner was not domiciled here when the order was made. The debtor had a domicile of origin in England, but later acquired on in the Isle of Man. He then acquired a home in Mauritius . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.238726