.png)
The author of this blog is Siddhant Saroj, a fifth-year law student pursuing BBA LLB (Hons) from National Law University Odisha. The author has a keen interest in International Law and Globalization.
ABSTRACT
The abstract provides a detailed summary of the concept of domicile in the conflict of laws and its effects on various legal disputes. It talks about how domicile operates to connect an individual with a legal system for purposes such as jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition of judgments. Domicile is defined as that connecting factor which connects an individual to the laws of a particular region. Its importance is explained in different legal contexts. The difference between domicile and residence has been emphasized; while the latter only requires physical presence, the former denotes an intention to remain permanently which must be proved by actual residence. The abstract outlines that domicile imposes great effects on a person’s legal rights concerning taxation, voting rights, and legal privileges. The author provides the purpose statement where he motivates his need to enrich their knowledge in relation to domicile hence its connection with conflict of laws. He also wades into the introduction whereby he highlights the importance of domicile in determining disputes relating to different categories of persons while simultaneously showing how courts determine one’s domicile whenever a dispute arises. There is also discussion relating to the classification of domicile between different persons which includes “domicile of origin” “domicile of choice” as well as “domicile dependent persons”. Domicile influence over civil disputes, matrimonial disputes, and commercial disputes will equally form part of the areas expected for assessors; focusing together with application over specific jurisdictions based on one’s paternal relic.
1. INTRODUCTION
There is no definition of Domicile in the Constitution of India. Generally, it refers to a “permanent” residence or a place where someone dwells with the purpose of living there permanently. Residence and domicile are two different things. Residency denotes a simply physical state, such as the fact of merely being and residing at a certain place. Yet, a domicile is far more than a simple place to reside; it also is somewhere you intend to stay forever. Domicile refers to a man’s relationship with their nation of residence; nevertheless, it will never result from group identity as opposed to the country where the group is domiciled. Yet, the local law of the home nation, like in the case of India, may make its own distinctions between social classes and impose various laws according to religion. Domicile of origin is immutable. Even in the event that an individual acquires a domicile of choice, the domicile of origin remains available to make up for any deficiencies if the individual subsequently decides to give up the domicile of choice.
2. SIGNIFICANCE OF DOMICILE IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION
An individual’s domicile is the country in where he or she resides permanently, as
determined by the laws. An American Judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes J has provided an explanation of the idea of residence… “the very meaning of domicile is the technically pre-eminent headquarters that every person is compelled to have in order that certain right and duties that have attached to it by the law may be determined”. Domicile acts as a bridge between several legislative systems. Domicile may be utilized to establish a jurisdictional relationship, which is necessary for the court to exercise jurisdiction as well as the acknowledgment and belief of the jurisdiction of a foreign court. Domicile affects a citizen’s tax obligation, freedom to vote, ability to hold public office, and availability to assist with a variety of needs including ailment or unemployment. A citizen must be a part of some legislation for the purpose of governing his or her legal duties, hence there isn’t such a chance of a person being without a domicile.
A person living in a global society must deal with the issue of domicile on a regular basis. The idea of domicile has several legal repercussions and effects, which fall on a person who decides their domicile. It frequently determines the jurisdiction to evaluate income and death taxes; main jurisdiction for the purposes of probating wills and managing estates; and judicial sovereign authority over a person. Additionally, a citizen’s domicile affects where and how they can exercise their legal privileges and liberties, such as casting a vote.
3. PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE LAW OF DOMICILE
3.1 A citizen cannot be without a domicile
This concept is rooted in the pragmatic requirement that every individual be connected to a certain legal system through which issues pertaining to his personal relationships and family assets are to be resolved. In the case of Udny v. Udny, it was observed that “no man shall be without a domicile, and secure this result the law attributes to every individual as soon as he is born, the domicile of his father, if the child is legitimate and the domicile of the mother if illegitimate this has been called the domicile of origin and is involuntary”. Till a new domicile has just been acquired, the domicile of origin is in effect. However, the moment someone loses their acquired domicile, they will have to go back to their original domicile.
3.2 A citizen is only permitted to reside in one place
Several nations currently allow dual citizenship. The principal aim of this statute remains consistent with its original intent, which was to assign an individual to a certain legal category. A person’s domicile, often known as a “law district”, denotes their connection to a local problem governed by a single legal code. To elucidate the perception presented in D.P Joshi v. Madhya Bharat and N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore that as states have the autonomous authority to enact laws governing marriage, divorce, succession, and other matters, they may choose a separate legal system as their domicile. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India held that “the term ‘domicile’ did not appear in
these two cases in a specific sense applied under private international law, but rather to demonstrate India, the concept of intending to reside ‘permanently’ for the reason of admittance to medical or other technical institutions within a state”.
3.3 Presumption favoring a pre-existing domicile
In the absence of the evidence of acquirement of a new domicile, an existing domicile is assumed to remain in effect. And therefore, the onus of proof for changing the domicile is always on the party who makes the claim. The court must rule in favor of the current domicile if the evidence submitted is confusing or unconvincing.
3.4 Domicile refers to a person’s relationship with a regional legal system
Domicile connects a person to a particular regional legal order, however, this does not imply that all social classes are subject to the same laws under the order. For example, in India, various social groups are subject to distinct laws based on their caste, race, or religion.
3.5 Domicile is governed according to English law
The place of an individual in a dispute involving a foreign party, domicile will be decided in keeping with the English concept of domicile instead of the foreign meaning. To be more precise, an individual with a domicile in England may decide to have a domicile in France for the sake of English private international law if they comply with English regulations even though they may not comply with French rules.
4. DOMICILE IN VARIOUS CONFLICT OF LAW DISPUTES
4.1 Civil Disputes
The law of the nation where an individual is domiciled will typically govern issues relating to that person’s legal rights and obligations unless there are other factors indicating that another jurisdiction’s laws should apply. Domicile can also be relevant in determining which court has jurisdiction over a civil dispute. In some cases, a court may only have jurisdiction over a dispute if either of the parties has their domicile in the nation where the court is situated. In addition to these factors, the domicile can also impact civil disputes in other ways, such as by influencing the court’s decision on the venue or by affecting the availability of certain legal remedies or defences. In the case of Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v. Diversified Acquisitions Corp., the court had to determine which state’s law applied to a breach of contract dispute between parties located in different states. The court considered various factors, including the domicile of the parties, to determine which state’s law applied. Also, in Murphy v. ERG Enters, the court had to determine which state’s law applied to a personal injury lawsuit filed by a plaintiff who was injured while working in a different state from where they resided. The court considered various factors, including the plaintiff's domicile, to determine which state’s law applied.
4.2 Matrimonial Disputes
When a matrimonial dispute arises, the parties involved may be located in different countries, and each country may have its own set of laws that could potentially apply to the case. In such cases, courts will consider the parties’ domiciles to determine which nation’s laws should be applied. The domicile of an individual is significant because it determines the laws that apply to issues such as marriage validity, divorce, property rights, and child custody. For example, the legality and conditions of a marriage may be governed by the laws of the nation in which the couple was married, while matters like child custody and property distribution may be governed by the laws of the nation in which the divorce is filed. As in the case Harvey v. Farnie, the contention was that an English woman and a Scotch man married in England, being an ‘English marriage’, no foreign Court had jurisdiction to dissolve the same.
The House of Lords rejected this contention and held that “on marriage, the wife took the domicile of her husband and became subject to his laws”. Hence, the Scottish Court’s divorce order was accepted as a valid judgment of a court with the appropriate authority. In Lord Advocate v. Jaffrey, the facts were that “Isabella married Robert, a scotch, and lived with him in Scotland. Thereafter, Robert left for Australia where he married another woman and lived with her there till his death. In the meantime, Isabella filed an action against Robert for divorce on the grounds of desertion and adultery but that action failed in consequence of her death. Thereafter, a question about legacy duty in respect of her property arose and it became necessary to decide what was her domicile. While affirming the general rule that the domicile of the husband is the domicile of the wife, it was held that Robert had abandoned his Scottish domicile and acquired a domicile in Queensland and that in the absence of decree for judicial separation in favor of Isabella, her domicile followed that of Robert”. This case follows the rule laid down in Le Mesurier’s case, that the “matrimonial status is governed by the law of
domicile of the parties and that the wife’s domicile follows the domicile of her husband”.
4.3 Commercial Disputes
The domicile of a corporation is significant because it determines the laws that govern the corporation's formation, operation, and dissolution. In determining a corporation’s domicile, courts will consider several factors, such as the location of its headquarters, the place where its board of directors meets, where key business decisions are made, and where most of its employees and assets are located. When a commercial dispute arises, courts will examine the domicile of the parties involved to determine which country’s laws should apply. In the case Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v. Zodiac Seats UK Ltd, the court considered the question of whether a company that had a subsidiary in a foreign country was domiciled in that country for the purposes of the jurisdiction rules in the Brussels Regulation. The court held that “the company was not domiciled in the foreign country merely by virtue of having a subsidiary there, and therefore the English courts did not have jurisdiction over the company”. Also, in the case Rubin v. Eurofinance SA, the Supreme Court considered whether a foreign judgment obtained against a company in the country where it was incorporated could be enforced against assets situated in England. The court held that “the foreign judgment could be enforced in England, provided that the company was domiciled in the country where the judgment was obtained”.
5. CONCLUSION
The most important linking element in the conflict of laws is domicile. There are significant domicile principles. Each individual inherits their place of origin at birth. In all disputes involving domicile, the conventional civil standard of proof on a balance of probability should be used. Judgments do not constitute a fair system of justice, hence it is essential to make legislation in civilian areas that would educate the people about their rights and obligations.
REFERENCES:
Wicker v. Hume, House of Lords, 16 July 1858, 11 E.R. 50 (England & Wales) <https://vlex.co.uk/vid/wicker-v-hume-804161297> accessed 12 March 2023.
Burgin and Fletcher, Conflict of law (3rd edn).
Central Bank of India v. Ram Narnia, [1955 AIR 36, 1955 SCR (1) 697](India).
Williamson v. Osenton, U.S. Supreme Court, 9 March 1914, 232 U.S. 619 (1914).
NADELMANN, Habitual residence and nationality as tests at The Hague: the 1968 Convention on Recognition of Divorces (Vol. 47, Texas Law Review 1969) <www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=2237> accessed 12 March 2023.
Jubae, Hoque and Banik, Jurisdiction and the Law of Jurisdiction in International Law (2020) <www.researchgate.net/publication/352283699_Jurisdiction_and_the_Law_of_Jurisdiction_in_International_Law> accessed 11 March 2023.
‘The Importance of Domicile’ (Cummings & Lockwood LLC, February 2006) <www.cl-law.com/news-events/the-importance-domicile/pdf.> accessed 11 March 2023.
(1869) L.R. 1 SC. 441.
Cheshire, North and Fawcett J, Private international law (15th edn, Oxford Publications 2017).
[1955 AIR 334, 1955 SCR (1)1215].
[1971 AIR 1439, 1971 SCR 381].
[1984 AIR 1420, 1984 SCR (3) 942].
Zirinis BP and Viole EA, ‘Planning for changes of domicile, residence, citizenship, and nationality: the US perspective’ (2012) 18(8) Trusts & Trustees 773 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/tandt/tts088> accessed 12 March 2023.
Diwan P, Private International Law (4th edn, Deep & Deep’s Publication 1998).
Goodrich HF, ‘Matrimonial Domicile’ (1917) 27(1) The Yale Law Journal 49 <http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/786729> accessed 14 March 2023.
Le Mesurier's case (1895) AC 517.
Comments