This essay will discuss the legal principles surrounding the acquisition of a domicile of choice in England and Wales. It will be argued that the statement in the question is correct. While long residence, such as Mr. Ambe’s twenty years in England, is a significant factor, it is not sufficient on its own to establish a domicile of choice. The crucial, and often decisive, element is the individual’s intention to reside permanently or indefinitely, the *animus manendi*, which must be proven alongside the fact of residence.
The Requirements for a Domicile of Choice
Every individual possesses a domicile, which acts as the legal connection between a person and a legal system, determining matters such as marriage, divorce, and succession. A person acquires a domicile of origin at birth, which they retain until a new domicile of choice is acquired (Dicey, Morris & Collins, 2022). To acquire a domicile of choice in England, as Mr. Ambe is alleged to have done, two distinct conditions must be met. These are, first, the physical fact of residence (*factum*) and second, the intention to remain in that place of residence permanently or indefinitely (*animus manendi*).
The House of Lords in *Udny v Udny* (1869) established this two-part test. It is not enough for a person to simply live in a country; they must also demonstrate a specific state of mind regarding that residence. The burden of proof rests on the person who asserts that a domicile of choice has been acquired. As such, to argue that Mr. Ambe has acquired an English domicile, one would need to prove both his residence and his intention on the balance of probabilities.
The Interplay of Residence and Intention
Residence is the factual foundation for acquiring a domicile of choice. Mr. Ambe’s twenty-year residence in England clearly satisfies this first requirement. Indeed, long-term residence can be powerful evidence from which the court may infer the necessary intention. As the court noted in *Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Henwood* [2008] EWCA Civ 577, the longer a person resides in a country, the more likely it is that they intend to make it their permanent home.
However, case law demonstrates conclusively that long residence, even for a much longer period than twenty years, does not automatically lead to a change of domicile. The intention to remain is a separate and essential element. The case of *Inland Revenue Commissioners v Bullock* [1976] 1 WLR 1178 is a key authority on this point. In *Bullock*, a man with a Canadian domicile of origin had lived in England for over forty years. Despite this prolonged residence, the Court of Appeal held that he had not acquired a domicile of choice in England. The evidence showed that he maintained a firm and continuing intention to return to Canada if his English wife predeceased him. This ‘contingent’ intention was enough to negate the *animus manendi*, demonstrating that his residence in England was not accompanied by the intention to make it his permanent home.
Similarly, in *Cyganik v Agulian* [2006] EWCA Civ 129, an individual had lived and worked in England for 43 years, had a family, and ran a business there. Nevertheless, the court found he had retained his Cypriot domicile of origin as he had consistently expressed a desire to return to Cyprus upon retirement. These cases show that the courts will look for a positive intention to abandon the domicile of origin and settle in the new country indefinitely. A “floating intention” to return is sufficient to prevent the acquisition of a domicile of choice (Gilmore, 2017). Therefore, in Mr. Ambe’s case, an inquiry would be needed into his life, ties, and expressed wishes to determine if, alongside his residence, he has formed the necessary settled intention.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the statement that Mr. Ambe’s twenty-year residence in England does not necessarily mean he has acquired an English domicile of choice is legally correct. English law requires both residence (*factum*) and the intention to remain permanently or indefinitely (*animus manendi*). While twenty years of residence is a strong starting point and provides significant evidence towards establishing a domicile of choice, it is not conclusive. As demonstrated by cases like *IRC v Bullock*, a person can reside in a country for decades while still legally retaining their domicile of origin, provided they lack the requisite intention to make the new country their permanent home. Without clear evidence that Mr. Ambe has abandoned his former domicile and intends to reside in England for the rest of his life, his twenty years of residence alone are insufficient to establish an English domicile of choice.
References
- Barlow Clowes International Ltd (in liquidation) v Henwood [2008] EWCA Civ 577.
- Cyganik v Agulian [2006] EWCA Civ 129.
- Dicey, A.V., Morris, J.H.C. and Collins, L. (2022) Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws. 16th edn. Sweet & Maxwell.
- Gilmore, S. (2017) ‘Is Domicile a Relic of the Past or a Signpost to the Future?’, King’s Law Journal, 28(1), pp. 83-108.
- Inland Revenue Commissioners v Bullock [1976] 1 WLR 1178.
- Udny v Udny (1869) LR 1 Sc & Div 441.
