Name: Stephen Ooi
ID #: 03149262
Date of Submission: 23/03/06
Course: Private International Law
Course Code: LS2507
Private International Law
Written Assignment
The word domicile is notoriously difficult to define; having multiple meanings depending on what area of law one is looking at. Even within private international law the word has differing meanings depending on which country you are in or what piece of legislation is being looked at. This presents problems both nationally and internationally and therefore it's important to determine what issues are raised in any potential problem allowing you to select the correct definition of the word. The question put before me is asking in general terms where the permanent home of the individuals in question is, his "centre of gravity"1. Multiple factors have to be taken into account when attempting to come to a conclusion. Taking all surrounding factors into account it will thus be easier to determine each persons domicile individually.
To aid in determining the domicile it is necessary to look at the individual rules governing domicile, namely; the domicile of origin, domicile of dependence and the domicile of choice. It should however be noted that a person may only have one domicile for a set purpose and that there is always a presumption in favour of an existing domicile and any burden of proof lies on behalf of the party seeking to change his domicile.2 The burden however has been reduced to some extent and doesn't appear to be as onerous as it once was.
The domicile of origin is relatively simple. It's the domicile a person gains at birth as determined by parentage, thus it doesn't matter where a child was born since it follows his parents domicile. The rules under this doctrine relating to children until recently were high unsatisfactory. The rules in my opinion were draconian and sexist. A child was deemed to follow his fathers domicile if the child was legitimate and if not followed his mothers. Finally in 1970 this was abolished. Now it is proposed that dependent children should be regarded as domiciled in the country they are most closely connected.3 Finally if separated the child takes the domicile of the parent he or she is living with. As noted above it is harder to loose your domicile of origin, as shown by relative case law.4 I take the view however that this importance placed on the domicile of origin is dated and should be relaxed in today's modern age with international travel common place. Of more importance is the fact that the domicile of origin can be revived if a domicile of choice is lost and a new one not gained.5 This rule may create potential problems but as of 1976 this was still good law.
ID #: 03149262
Date of Submission: 23/03/06
Course: Private International Law
Course Code: LS2507
Private International Law
Written Assignment
The word domicile is notoriously difficult to define; having multiple meanings depending on what area of law one is looking at. Even within private international law the word has differing meanings depending on which country you are in or what piece of legislation is being looked at. This presents problems both nationally and internationally and therefore it's important to determine what issues are raised in any potential problem allowing you to select the correct definition of the word. The question put before me is asking in general terms where the permanent home of the individuals in question is, his "centre of gravity"1. Multiple factors have to be taken into account when attempting to come to a conclusion. Taking all surrounding factors into account it will thus be easier to determine each persons domicile individually.
To aid in determining the domicile it is necessary to look at the individual rules governing domicile, namely; the domicile of origin, domicile of dependence and the domicile of choice. It should however be noted that a person may only have one domicile for a set purpose and that there is always a presumption in favour of an existing domicile and any burden of proof lies on behalf of the party seeking to change his domicile.2 The burden however has been reduced to some extent and doesn't appear to be as onerous as it once was.
The domicile of origin is relatively simple. It's the domicile a person gains at birth as determined by parentage, thus it doesn't matter where a child was born since it follows his parents domicile. The rules under this doctrine relating to children until recently were high unsatisfactory. The rules in my opinion were draconian and sexist. A child was deemed to follow his fathers domicile if the child was legitimate and if not followed his mothers. Finally in 1970 this was abolished. Now it is proposed that dependent children should be regarded as domiciled in the country they are most closely connected.3 Finally if separated the child takes the domicile of the parent he or she is living with. As noted above it is harder to loose your domicile of origin, as shown by relative case law.4 I take the view however that this importance placed on the domicile of origin is dated and should be relaxed in today's modern age with international travel common place. Of more importance is the fact that the domicile of origin can be revived if a domicile of choice is lost and a new one not gained.5 This rule may create potential problems but as of 1976 this was still good law.
