Ramana v Kist-Ramana

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a decision by Judge Williams on 25 October 2024, who dismissed an application for divorce due to lack of jurisdiction, finding that the courts of England and Wales did not have jurisdiction because the wife was not domiciled there on the date of her application, 11 October 2022. The wife appealed the decision. The parties are cousins by birth with Mauritian family origins. The husband was born in England but grew up there, while the wife was born and raised in Mauritius, moving to England in 2000 on a student visa. They married in 2003 in England and had two children born and raised there until the family left England in September 2019 to move to Mauritius. The marriage broke down in November 2020, with separation thereafter. The wife returned to England in October 2022 with the children and commenced divorce proceedings on 11 October 2022. The husband initiated proceedings in Mauritius and under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, the latter dismissed in May 2023. The jurisdictional question centered on the wife's domicile status on 11 October 2022.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction to entertain the divorce proceedings based on the wife's domicile on 11 October 2022.
2. Whether the wife had lost her domicile of choice in England prior to 11 October 2022.
3. The burden of proof relating to acquisition, loss, or revival of domicile of choice.
4. The appropriateness of a stay of proceedings under Schedule 1, paragraph 9 of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, given concurrent proceedings in Mauritius.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge failed to address the intermediate issue of whether the wife lost her domicile of choice in England prior to 11 October 2022.
• The judge applied the wrong legal test and did not conduct the required global evaluation of evidence, particularly failing to consider the wife's return to England in October 2022 and continued residence thereafter.
• The family's departure from England in 2019 was not intended to be permanent; the wife and family never intended to settle permanently in Mauritius or Singapore, but planned to return to England.
• On proper analysis, the wife had not lost her domicile of choice in England, and the burden of proof regarding loss of domicile lay with the husband.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge correctly applied the relevant legal principles and reached a decision open on the evidence.
• The wife lost her domicile of choice in England when the family left for Mauritius in 2019, with no planned return date.
• The family sold substantial assets in England, maintained no personal or professional ties there, and lived in Mauritius for three years.
• The wife's appeal is essentially a factual disagreement with the judge's findings rather than a legal error.
• The wife bore the burden of proving persistence of domicile of choice in England and failed to do so, resulting in revival of her domicile of origin in Mauritius.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Agulian v Cyganik [2006] EWCA Civ 129	Requirement to consider the whole of a person's life retrospectively when determining domicile.	Emphasized the error of dividing life into periods; the court must consider all relevant evidence up to the date in question.
Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Henwood [2008] EWCA Civ 577	High standard of proof and global evaluation required to establish or displace domicile of choice.	Confirmed that acquisition or loss of domicile requires cogent evidence and a global assessment of all relevant facts.
Mark v Mark [2006] 1 AC 98	Presence of bona fide intention to remain despite precarious immigration status suffices for domicile of choice.	Supported the proposition that unlawful presence does not preclude acquisition of domicile of choice if intention is genuine.
In the Estate of Fuld, Decd. (No 3) [1968] P 675	Subjective intention and contingencies affect domicile acquisition or loss; no clear line can be drawn.	Used to explain the complexity of assessing intention and contingencies in domicile cases.
Flynn (In re Flynn Decd (No. 1)) [1968] 1 WLR 103	Loss of domicile of choice requires ceasing residence and intention to reside permanently or indefinitely; positive intention not required.	Clarified that abandonment of domicile of choice occurs with absence of intention to continue residing, not necessarily positive intention not to return.
Qureshi v Qureshi [1972] Fam 173	Confirmed Flynn's approach to intention required for abandonment of domicile of choice.	Supported the view that animus non revertendi need not be positive; absence of intention to reside suffices.
IRC v Bullock [1976] 1 WLR 1178	Nature of intention and contingencies in domicile acquisition; intention based on uncertain but real contingencies may suffice.	Held that intention to return upon a real but uncertain contingency (e.g., spouse's death) is sufficient to prevent loss of domicile of origin.
Boldrini v Boldrini and Martini [1932] P 9	Precarious immigration status does not prevent acquisition of domicile of choice.	Applied in Mark to support that unlawful presence does not negate bona fide intention to remain.
Szechter (orse Karsov) v Szechter [1971] P 286	Limited permission to reside does not prevent acquisition or retention of domicile of choice if intention is present.	Confirmed that intentions can prevail despite legal uncertainties over residence status.
Doucet v Geoghegan (1878) 9 Ch D 441	Declarations of intention to return based on vague contingencies insufficient to rebut domicile of choice.	Held that indefinite promises to return do not outweigh evidence of permanent residence and intention.
Winans v Attorney-General [1904] AC 287	Intention linked to uncertain but genuine contingencies affects domicile status.	Found that despite chimerical nature of contingency, intention to return was real and domicile of origin persisted.
Ray v Sekhri [2014] 1 FLR 612	Assessment of intention must consider overall evidence; talk of return may be a "pipe dream".	Upheld that intention to reside indefinitely may persist despite expressed hopes of returning elsewhere.
Udny v Udny (1869) LR 1 Sc & Div 441	Acquisition and abandonment of domicile of choice are correlatives; loss occurs when both residence and intention cease.	Supported Flynn's reasoning on abandonment and revival of domicile of origin.
Ray v Sekhri [2014] 2 FLR 1168	Trial judge must highlight prominent factors determinative of outcome without slavishly listing all evidence.	Emphasized judicial responsibility in evaluating evidence relevant to domicile.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the judge's decision and found that he erred in failing to expressly and clearly address whether the wife had lost her domicile of choice in England prior to 11 October 2022. While the judge found the wife had acquired a domicile of choice by 2016, he did not properly consider the burden of proof distribution, which requires the husband to prove loss of domicile once acquisition is established. The judge's analysis was limited to evidence up to the family's departure from England in September 2019 and did not take into account subsequent events, notably the wife's return to England in October 2022 and continued residence thereafter. The judge's conclusion that the wife's intention to make England her permanent home ended in 2019 was based on an assumption that the plan to return was merely aspirational and the future uncertain; however, precedent indicates that uncertainty or contingencies do not necessarily negate the required intention if it is bona fide and genuine. The court emphasized that domicile determination is a subjective inquiry into intention, requiring a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant evidence, including conduct after the date in question. The judge also improperly placed the entire burden of proof on the wife. The court concluded that the judge's failure to conduct a global evaluation of the evidence and to apply the correct legal principles rendered his decision unsustainable.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeal and set aside the judge's decision dismissing the divorce application for want of jurisdiction.

The case is remitted for rehearing to determine:

• whether the wife lost her domicile of choice in England prior to 11 October 2022; and
• whether the husband's application for a stay of proceedings under the DMPA 1973 should be granted.

No new precedent was established. The decision directly affects the parties by allowing the divorce proceedings to continue in England and Wales subject to the outcome of the rehearing.