Description[ edit ] In early societies, there was little mobility but, as travel from one state to another developed, problems emerged: what should happen if different forms of marriage exist, if children became adults at different ages, etc.? One answer is that people must be given a connection to a legal jurisdiction , like a passport, that they carry with them wherever they go. Domicile is governed by lex domicilii , as opposed to lex patriae which depends upon nationality , which is the relationship between an individual and a country. Where the state and the country are co-extensive, the two may be the same. However: Where the country is federated into separate legal systems, citizenship and domicile will be different.

Author:Shazshura Nejora
Country:Dominican Republic
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):26 October 2005
PDF File Size:10.41 Mb
ePub File Size:18.35 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Description[ edit ] In early societies, there was little mobility but, as travel from one state to another developed, problems emerged: what should happen if different forms of marriage exist, if children became adults at different ages, etc.?

One answer is that people must be given a connection to a legal jurisdiction , like a passport, that they carry with them wherever they go. Domicile is governed by lex domicilii , as opposed to lex patriae which depends upon nationality , which is the relationship between an individual and a country.

Where the state and the country are co-extensive, the two may be the same. However: Where the country is federated into separate legal systems, citizenship and domicile will be different.

For example, one might have United States citizenship and a domicile in Kentucky , Canadian citizenship and a domicile in Quebec , or Australian citizenship and a domicile in Tasmania. One can have dual nationality but not more than one domicile at a time. A person may have a domicile in one state while maintaining nationality in another country. Unlike nationality, no person can be without a domicile even if stateless. Domicile is distinct from habitual residence where there is much less focus on future intent.

Domicile is being supplanted by habitual residence in international conventions dealing with conflict of laws and other private law matters.

General principles[ edit ] A person can have only one domicile at any given time, and the manner in which it could change was explained in in the House of Lords by Lord Westbury in Udny v Udny: It is a settled principle, that no man shall be without a domicile, and to secure this result the law attributes to every individual as soon as he is born the domicile of the father if the child be legitimate, or the domicile of the mother if illegitimate.

This has been called the domicile of origin, and it is involuntary. Other domiciles are domiciles of choice, for, as soon as the individual is sui juris , it is competent to him to elect and assume another domicile, the continuance of which depends upon his will and act.

When another domicile is put on, the domicile of origin is for that purpose relinquished, and remains in abeyance during the continuance of the domicile. But as the domicile of origin is the creature of law, and independent of the will of the party, it would be inconsistent with the principles on which it is by law created and ascribed, to suppose, that it is capable of being, by the mere act of the party, entirely obliterated and extinguished.

It revives and exists whenever there is no other domicile, and it does not require to be regained or reconstituted animo et facto in the manner which is necessary for the acquisition of a new domicile of choice. Domicile of choice is a conclusion or inference which the law derives from the fact of a man fixing voluntarily his sole or chief residence in a particular place with the unlimited intention of continuing to reside there.

This is a description of the circumstances which create or constitute a domicile, and not a definition of the term. There must be a residence freely chosen and not prescribed or dictated by any external necessity such as the duties of office, the demands of creditors, or the relief of illness. And it must be residence fixed not for any defined period or particular purpose, but general and indefinite in its future duration.

It is true, that residence originally temporary, or intended only for a limited period, may afterwards become general and unlimited, and in such a case, so soon as the change of purpose or the animus manendi may be inferred, the fact of domicile of origin may be extinguished by act of law, as, for example, by sentence of death, exile , and perhaps outlawry , but it cannot be destroyed by the act of the party.

Domicile of choice, if it is gained animo et facto, may be put an end to in the same manner. Expressions are found in some books in one or two cases, to the effect, that the first domicile remains until another is acquired. This is true, if applied to the domicile of origin, but it cannot be true if such general words were intended which is not probable to convey the conclusion, that a domicile of choice, though unequivocally relinquished and abandoned, clings, in spite of his will and act.

The cases to which I have referred are in my opinion met and controlled by other decisions, but more especially by the reason of the thing. A natural born Englishman may, if he domiciles himself in Holland, acquire the status civilis of a Dutchman, which is of course ascribed to him in respect of his settled abode in Holland, but if he breaks up his establishment, sells his house and furniture, discharges his servants, quits Holland, declaring that he will never return to it again, and taking with him his wife and children for the purpose of travelling in France or Italy in search of another place of residence, can it be said, that he carries his Dutch domicile on his back, and that it clings to him pertinaciously until he has finally set up his tabernacle in another country?

Such a conclusion would be absurd. But there is no absurdity, but, on the contrary, much reason in holding, that an acquired domicile may be effectually determined by an unequivocal intention and act, and that, when it is so determined, the domicile of origin instantly revives, and continues until a new domicile of choice is acquired.

When a person dies, it is the law of their domicile that determines how their will is interpreted, or if the person has no valid will, how their property will pass by intestate succession.

The ability to settle permanently has been held to arise only when one can become a permanent resident of the jurisdiction for immigration purposes. For example, suppose that A came from England to Canada on a visa to work for an employer in Ontario. While there, his son B is born. A likes Canada enough to have his status changed to that of landed immigrant. When B comes of age, he decides to leave Ontario for good, but dies before settling permanently elsewhere.

When A obtains permission to land, Ontario becomes his domicile of choice, and B provided he is still a minor automatically acquires it as a domicile of dependency. When B attains the age of majority , Ontario becomes his domicile of choice until he decides to leave for good, at which time it reverts to the domicile of origin.

His new domicile of choice would only occur once he had been able to settle permanently in a new jurisdiction. In the case of abandonment, both the above conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously as they are interrelated, whereas they are discrete in the latter case of acquisition. B, while resident in India, had a legitimate son C who also, while resident in India, had a legitimate son D.

A, B and C intended to return to England when they retired at sixty years of age, but they all died in India before reaching that age. The East India Company was declared to be equivalent to a foreign government, and persons engaged in service to it for an indefinite period were deemed to have acquired Anglo-Indian domicile.

In , Stephen Lushington of the Consistory Court observed in dicta that, in the case of the Ottoman Empire , "every presumption is against the intention of British Christian subjects voluntarily becoming domiciled in the dominions of the Porte. But since special provision for the protection of foreigners in such countries has been made, the strength of the presumption against the acquisition of a domicile there is very much diminished.

Most jurisdictions have altered some aspects of the common law rules by statute , the details of which vary from one jurisdiction to another. The general framework of the common law rules has however survived in most jurisdictions and is in outline as follows: Canada[ edit ] Until the passage of the Divorce Act in , [29] divorce could only be obtained in the province of domicile, which effectively required those domiciled in Quebec and Newfoundland to obtain divorce only through an Act of the Parliament of Canada.

The Civil Code of Quebec standardizes rules for that province, [37] while Manitoba is the only common-law province to attempt to completely revise and simplify the rules within its scope. Ontario has modified the following rules relating to domicile: Effective 1 January , the domicile of origin for an adopted child was declared to be that of its adoptive parents, "as if the adopted child had been born in lawful wedlock to the adopting parent.

It can be changed as a result of adoption and marriage. Under the common law a married woman was deemed to have the same domicile as her husband, so the domicile of origin of the children of the marriage was the same as that of their father and the time of birth.

An orphan has the jurisdiction over the original domicile where he or she was found. This is referred to as a domicile of choice. A domicile of choice can be abandoned if a new domicile of choice is acquired or if the domicile of origin revives. Persons who reside in the U.

For example, a person can always be sued in their state of domicile. Furthermore, in order for individual parties that is, natural persons to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of a United States district court a federal trial court , all the plaintiffs must have a different state of domicile from all the defendants so-called "complete diversity".

If a domicile of choice lapses and is not replaced the domicile of origin reasserts itself. England and Wales The Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act [50] abolished the rule that a married woman had the domicile of her husband with transitional rules for those married before 1 January , as well as reforming the rules dealing with the domicile of minors.

Scotland The rules for persons under 16 for the particular purposes of some Scottish family law are dealt with in the Family Law Scotland Act , [51] but this does not by itself fix the domicile for general purposes. Northern Ireland The law in Northern Ireland is generally similar to England and Wales but with domestic statutes applying which are not inevitably coincident.

For taxation purposes Income tax and inheritance tax are applied at first instance to those who are domiciled in the UK. UK domicile is deemed to exist where a person has been UK-resident for at least 17 of the past 20 years, [55] and is deemed to continue to exist for up to three years after the acquisition of a new domicile.

For purposes of inheritance tax, where an individual has been UK resident for at least 15 of the last 20 tax years immediately preceding the relevant tax year, and for at least one of the four tax years ending with the relevant tax year.

A PRC national with a Chinese passport or a domicile registration is likely to be deemed as domiciled in China—whether resident in China or not—and therefore attract liability for individual income tax on worldwide income. Requirements vary by jurisdiction, and sometimes by the political office for which a person runs.

The cutoff may be as little as a month or as much as several years. Once elected, the office-holder must remain resident in the appropriate district, or may usually be forced to resign. Canada[ edit ] To run as a candidate for election to the House of Commons of Canada , a candidate must have established residency in Canada — however, a person does not need to have established residency in the specific district where they are running. As of , for instance, Stockwell Day continued to represent the same district in British Columbia to which he was elected in when he first entered the House of Commons as leader of the Canadian Alliance , even though he was a resident of Alberta at the time of his initial election.

Conversely, Joe Clark was elected in a by-election in Nova Scotia on the very same date as Day, following his reelection to his second stint as leader of the Progressive Conservatives , but held that seat only until the election and then stood in the Alberta riding of Calgary Centre.

In still other cases, a politician may run in a district other than the one they live in for personal reasons — such as having an established power base in that area from a prior political office, or simply not wanting to get drawn into a nomination contest with an existing incumbent.

For instance, Jack Layton represented the electoral district of Toronto—Danforth for the entirety of his term as a member of the House of Commons, even though his personal residence was in the nearby district of Trinity—Spadina. However, a non-resident candidate may sometimes face accusations of being a parachute candidate , which may or may not compromise their ability to win the election depending on the circumstances. In recent federal elections, some non-resident candidates have won election while others have lost.

A non-resident candidate who does win election is generally expected to establish a residence in or near the district soon afterward, although this is by public expectation rather than legal requirement. To be eligible for appointment to the Senate , a person must officially reside in the province which they are being appointed to represent.

However, this criterion has historically been interpreted quite liberally, with virtually any form of property holding — including primary residences, second residences, summer homes, rental or retail holdings or even lots of undeveloped land — having been deemed to meet the requirement, as long as the senator listed it as their primary residence on paper regardless of whether they actually resided there in any meaningful way.

Depending on the province or territory, however, there may or may not be a legal requirement to be a resident of the specific district where one is standing as a candidate. United States[ edit ] As a general principle, in the United States residency for federal politicians is defined as the intent to return to the particular district or state they represent following their term in office.

Conversely, to be eligible for election to a state-level office, such as a state assembly or a governorship, a person must be resident within the state where they are running for office; however, states vary in whether or not an assembly candidate is required to reside in the specific district where they are running.

To qualify for the program, applicants must meet certain financial and medical criteria. Successful applicants are then entitled to enter and leave the country on a largely unrestricted basis, and also benefit from other incentives aimed at making their stay in Malaysia more convenient.

Certain restrictions may apply. Malta[ edit ] In Malta , residency has been interpreted to include not only the physical presence in the country, but includes and allows periodic absence from the country. A person who is temporarily absent from Malta because of work, study, illness or mission, must not and cannot be considered as not resident in Malta.

United States[ edit ] Voting by the general public the electorate is also defined by residency, with most people being prohibited from doing so except at the precinct for their primary residence. There are sometimes exceptions for this, such as so that expatriates can vote in the country where they maintain their original citizenship. It is also important in terms of other law, such as requirements that vehicles and other things which must be licensed in the place which the owner resides.

There is a grace period normally around 30 days for persons moving into the area. In addition to such responsibilities , certain benefits also come from residency.

Discounts on tuition usually are allowed for students who are resident within the state or province or country for a year or more, if it is a public university or the like. Other forms of public assistance such as welfare may also have a waiting period , to prevent abuse. Residency in any given U. Latvia[ edit ] Latvia as participant of Schengen Agreement gives permission for citizens and those with a residency permit to travel to any other agreement participant. However there is a difference between a citizen and a holder of a residence permit in Latvia.

The person cannot join the army or a police force. Anyone who wishes to gain citizenship is allowed to do so after 5 years living in Latvia and passing language and history examinations.


Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973



Domicile (law)


Related Articles