fbpx

Where, If Anywhere, Do the Jet Set Call Home? High Court Gives Guidance

4th October 2019 By Arman Khosravi

Very rich people often live jet set lifestyles of ceaseless travel, so pinning down the country in which they are domiciled can be a serious challenge. The High Court faced exactly that difficulty in a case concerning the acrimonious breakdown of a relationship between a wealthy divorcee and her boyfriend.

The divorcee, who was a woman of immense means, for a number of years enjoyed a lavish and peripatetic lifestyle with her boyfriend, whom she had met at the gym where he worked. After they separated, she launched proceedings against him in London, seeking declarations that various assets acquired during the relationship – including a luxurious Italian property and a fleet of supercars – were owned by her alone, having been bought entirely with her money.

She also sought restitution of various business investments and over $9 million in cash. Her claims were based on an assertion that none of the assets and money concerned had been gifted to him and that they had been transferred to him by reason of the undue influence he had brought to bear on her.

He denied her claims and launched parallel proceedings in his native New Zealand, where the law enables division of relationship property on the permanent separation of unmarried couples. Neither of them was a British citizen and, following the end of the relationship, he had moved back to New Zealand to live with his parents. He argued that he had never been domiciled in England and that the English courts thus had no jurisdiction to entertain the divorcee’s claim.

In ruling on that issue, the Court found that he had made his home in England before the relationship ended. However, his residence and domicile in this country had ceased by the time the divorcee issued proceedings (the relevant date). His principal connection to England came to an end at the same time as his relationship and he had been excluded from his only residence in this country.

However, the Court also ruled on the evidence that he was not domiciled in New Zealand, or anywhere else, on the relevant date. On that basis, the divorcee was entitled to sue him in England in that this country was his last known place of domicile. She had also been entitled, with judicial permission, to serve him with the proceedings in New Zealand, by means of a WhatsApp message. England was in any event the appropriate forum for the trial of the divorcee’s claim in that the relationship had, for the most part, been carried on in this country.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Retired Businessman's Final Will Ruled Invalid

2nd May, 2024 By

Having your will drawn up professionally by a qualified solicitor is always a sensible precaution, especially in later life. In a recent case, the High Court ruled that a retired businessman lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will less than three and a half years before he died at the age of 87. The man and his first wife were married for nearly 40 years and had four children. After her death he married again. In October 2015 he made a new will, revoking in most respects a will...

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...