Domicile

• Domicile means a permanent home (not actual) & a link between a person and a place.
• In law it means the status of being a lawful permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction.
• If a person maintained sufficient links with a jurisdiction/ has not left with the intention to abandon the residency
that person remains the domicile.
• Domicile could be a country which he has never been.
• 3 types of domicile.
1) Domicile of Dependence – Father’s domicile (mother’s if illegitimate child)
2) Domicile of Choice – At age 16 if a person acquires a residence with the intention to residing there
3) Domicile of Origin – Assigned to a child at birth
• Everyone has a domicile of any of above mentioned.
• No one can have more than one domicile at the same time.
• The burden of proof is on the person who asserts it.
• The law of person’s domicile is called as Lex domicile

1) Domicile of Dependence

For married woman For Children

She gets husband’s domicile Legitimate children – father’s domicile
Her domicile changes when husband’s domicile changes as well Illegitimate children – mother’s domicile
• Irrespective of her intention
• Irrespective of whether she lives with him or not
• Apply even if judicially separated & not divorced
Lord Advocate v. Jaffrey Duleep sing case

• Child will not father’s domicile if the father has abdicated the child (Hope v. Hope)
• Child’s domicile is determined by determining the validity of marriage parents
• If the legitimate child’s father has died, child will continue the mother’s domicile
• The domicile of the orphans/ illegitimate children without a mother, remained at the time of the parents’ death &
domicile doesn’t change with the guardian (Domicile & Matrimonial Proceedings Act)
• Adoptive child who treats as a legitimate, will have the adoptive father’s domicile
• Mentally unfit people, retain the domicile they had before becoming unfit/ incapable

2) Domicile of Choice
• Who acquires the domicile of Choice?
I. A person who is 16 years/ above,
II. Validly married persons,
III. Not Insane.
• Requirements to acquire domicile
I. Person who intends to acquire domicile take up residence in the new place.
II. Acquire new place with the intention of remaining there permanently/ definitely.
• Two main elements are the intention & the residence.

• Residence
✓ A residence acquires with the intention to settle is enough, not necessary to establish a residence of length.
✓ Bell v. Kennedy – left origin of domicile in Jamaica - new residence in Scotland – doubt of new domicile – wife died –
bought a land in Scotland & died. Court held that, Jamaica is Mrs. Bill’s domicile as Mr. Bell hasn’t acquired new
domicile at her death. Scotland is Mr. Bell’s domicile as he acquired a domicile prior to death. To acquire a domicile,
the clear intention to reside there is essential.
✓ Immigrants get domicile of a new country as soon as they step there with the intention to reside there. Not
necessary to buy/rent a house. Illegal immigrants are not subjected to this.
✓ Holding two domiciles in two different countries at the same time is possible. But need to acquire new resident in a
new country with the intention of residing there & link between two residencies must be maintained properly.
✓ Plummer v. IRC – born & domicile of origin is in England – lived with parents – mother left Guernsey – visited mother
in holidays – had the intention to live with mother after education – bank account, passport contained both
addresses. Court held that possible to acquire a new domicile without ceasing earlier, but must establish, “new
domicile as the chief residence”

• Intention
✓ Types of Intention to reside,
I. For a definite period & leave – not sufficient to get domicile
II. Until a definite purpose is achieved – not sufficient to get domicile
III. To reside for an indefinite period (until some induces to leave) – Not sufficient
IV. Intention to reside forever – Sufficient to get domicile
✓ Winans v. AG – The person who lived in England for 37 years for medical purposes, hated & prevented acquiring
domicile there held as he hadn’t acquired domicile in England. (long residence is not sufficient)
✓ IRC v. Bullock – Person who hoped to return Canada whose wife died there had never acquired England domicile.
✓ Re Furse case – Workman in England who had the intention to return to USA, if his health prevented him from
working, court held that ha had acquired the domicile in England.

• Proof of intention
✓ Direct evidence – Person’s own statement which may not be trustable & back up by other evidences.
✓ Indirect evidence – Consider the all circumstance of his life.

• Abandonment of Domicile of Choice

✓ By ceasing to reside there & by ceasing the intention to reside there permanently/indefinitely
✓ Goods of Raffenel case – Domicile of origin is in England – acquired domicile in France by marriage – husband died –
decided to leave but she died before leaving. Court held, if decided to leave but hasn’t left is not an abandonment.

• Prisoners if exiled for life, acquire domicile in prison, it not retains earlier domicile
• Refugees, if intends to return, not abandoned domicile ai home land
• Soldiers depend on circumstances

3) Domicile of Origin
• Everyone has a domicile of origin.
• If the parents’ domicile is unknown, then the country in which the child is found becomes the domicile of origin
• Domicile of Origin can’t be abandoned, it can be lost by acquiring a domicile of choice
• If no domicile is applicable, domicile of origin will revive
• Fixed domicile of origin cannot be changed like the domicile of Dependence/Choice
• But adoptive children can acquire adoptive father’s domicile
• In frequently, in operation, domicile of origin is not used as a connecting factor to select legal system
• Domicile of origin is difficult to discard. But if the party establish cessation of lawful physical presence & intention to
not to return as well as the presence & intention to return in the new place, it can be discarded
• Johnson v. Johnson – sailor travelling – spent short days in Sweden – reached USA – seemed to settle in New Jersey –
married in New York. Held Sweden as the domicile at the time of marriage as he had not any clear intention to not to
return Sweden.
• Critiques of Domicile of origin – (1) Difficult to tell where person domiciled
(2) Expensive to prove (need the evidence of life history)
(3) One can provide artificial domiciles with no real links
• Law Commission Working Paper of 1985 abolished the Domicile of Origin & according to that paper, If the claimer is
under the age 16, lives with both parents then get mothers domicile, lives with one parent then get such parent’s
domicile, lives with neither parent then the country with the closest connection.
• If the claimer is mentally disordered, then domicile of country with closest connection will apply
• Domicile of Corporation – Acquired Domicile of incorporation, cannot be changed if the business location changes
• Methods of Habitual Residence & Nationality has adopted in some legal systems instead of domicile
• Habitual Residence
✓ Regular physical presence which must endure for some time
✓ But do not require the same intention necessary to acquire domicile
✓ Habitual residence can continue even after absenting for a long period of time
✓ It is something less than domicile but more than simple residence
✓ Its also be more discriminating than the nationality
Domicile of Choice Habitual Residence
Intention is an essential factor Intention is not an essential factor
Physical presence is not an essential factor Physical presence is essential

• Nationality
✓ It is a legal relationship between a person & a state
✓ It affords the state jurisdiction over the person
✓ It’s a political concept & its rights and duties vary from place to place
✓ In Civil law countries there are some people with dual nationality

Choice of Law in Contract

• Current English law is found in Contracts Applicable Law Act of 1990

• General Principles
1. A contractual obligation cannot exist in absence of matter
2. Contract should come into existence from a specific legal system
3. Contract should be bound under a specific legal system
4. Applicable law can be law of the place of performance/law of the place of contract
5. Often not straight forward
6. The court apply the law chosen by parties
7. Proper law of the contract will be considered by the court
• R v. International Trustee for the Protection of Bondholders
✓ Intention of the parties will be ascertained by the intention expressed in the contract
✓ If the intention is not expressed the in the contract, court will refer the terms & surrounding of the contract
✓ English court will grant the jurisdiction from outside, if the contract has an EL implication
• When ascertaining the proper law “choice of law” means where parties have expressly chosen a law to be applied
according to the case Vita Food v. Unus Shipping
• Limitations to the “Choice of law” – (1) Choice should be bona fide & legal if it has no connection to the contract
(2) Foreign law cannot override the imperative statues of the Lex fori
(3) English courts will not enforce a contract which will be unlawful under the
law where it is performed
• No reported English law cases where the Choice of law has struck down, so the limitations are low
• Incorporation a foreign law in a contract
✓ Parties could incorporate particular foreign law provisions in a contract
✓ If foreign law is proper, it will be applied as it is at the date of the action
✓ Just merely incorporated foreign law will be applied as it was at the date entered in to the contract
• Amin Rasheed Shipping Co. v. Kuwait Insurance Co. Ltd
✓ Issue was that there were no any expressed terms say that EL is applicable
✓ Court looked whether parties have chosen EL as the proper law impliedly
✓ Some parties argued that the Kuwait Law as the proper law because,
I. Policy issued in Kuwait II. Payment of claim to be made in Kuwait
✓ Some parties argued that the EL as the proper law because,
I. Contract is in English following the English form of contracts
II. Payment is in Sterling Pounds
✓ These weren’t enough to select the proper law, court looked for the terms & surrounding circumstances
i. Above factors show the intention of the parties to apply English Law of Marine Insurance
ii. There were no marine laws in Kuwait at the time of the contract
iii. Terms & policies of the contract are only sensible to the English Law of Marine Insurance
✓ Court held the English Law as the proper law
• Principles used by courts to determine the proper law in the absence of any chosen law
1. Imputed intention 2. The law to where the transaction had its closest connection
• Amin Rasheed Shipping Co. v. Kuwait Insurance
✓ Court held that it’s the system of law with the closest connection rather than the country
✓ Generally, system & country are same but could differ at times
✓ Other important factors to be considered,
a. Place of performance d. Nature of the contract
b. Residence of the parties e. Subject matter of the contract
c. Place f business of the parties
✓ Judge decides the proper law when no proper law indicated in the contract
• Formation of a contract
✓ Formation is determined, by the place where the contract has decided to take into consideration
✓ If not, putative law (validly concluded in the contract) will be taken into consideration

(1) Offer & Acceptance

▪ Albeko v. Kamborian – Differ with legal system. Under Law of Switzerland acceptance takes place when
the letter of acceptance is received by the offeror, but in English Law it takes place when the letter posted
(2) Formal Validity
▪ A form needs to be followed to create a valid contract
▪ Procedural formality – Contract is made following the statues of fraud in England
▪ Non-procedural formality – Notarial execution of certain contracts/ compliance with Lex loci contracts/
putative proper law
(3) Capacity
▪ It’s the personal law of the parties, what matters to the capacity
▪ eg; Minimum age of contractual capacity is under 18 in one country & 21 in another country
▪ Sometimes the judgement made based on Lex domicile / Lex Contractus
(4) Essential validity of the contract
▪ Duress done not under Lex loci contractus as in proper EL that contract is voidable
(5) Discharge – Contract is discharged according to proper law
(6) Performance – Albert Borough v. Aus Auss – proper law depends on Lex fori
(7) Interpretation – Proper law allows the parties
(8) Illegality
▪ If a contract is illegal/ void for illegality under proper law/ illegal in the place to be performed, the English
law will never enforce it
 Jurisdiction in Personam
1) Presence
• English courts exercise wide jurisdiction over anyone presence in the kingdom
• Maharani of Baroda v. Wildstein – In a dispute over a sale of an art, an Indian princess resided in France was served
as a claimant in England
• Wattkin v. North American Land & Timber – If a person has induced to come to England, the claim may be stated as
an abuse of process

2) Submission
• If parties submit, courts exercise jurisdiction if the parties have no connection to England
• Submission can take place in several ways,
✓ Claimant submit to re-counter claim
✓ Defendant instructs a solicitor to accept
✓ Defendant appears & contests the merits of the case
✓ Submission by agreement
• If defendant not present, then not submitted. But England may still be the best forum if the all witnesses are there
• Extended jurisdiction established within the discretion of the court

3) Long arm jurisdiction

• This means the ability of local courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants
• This allows the court to hear a case & enter a binding action against the defendant residing outside of jurisdiction
• Where leave is granted to serve claim form outside the jurisdiction
• England courts will exercise jurisdiction, once the claim form is served outside the jurisdiction
• It’s court’s discretion whether to allow/not to allow to serve outside the jurisdiction
• Claimant must show that the English court is the most suitable court (court will not give permission unless satisfied
that England Wales is the proper place to bring the claim)

4) European Community
• John Russell v. Cayzer – Sometimes the mere presence of the defendant & the fact that he’s served with a claim
form within the jurisdiction is enough to exercise jurisdiction over him, though he has not domiciled in Europe

5) Method of Service
Personal Service Send to Company
• Handing over to the defendant • Registered in England, serving & posting to register
• Can leave it next to him if he refuses to accept office
• If partnership – on a partner, person in control over • If the business closed, other places of business
all partners • Foreign company if carrying away, such address
should be given to the registrar of companies

• Barclay’s Bank of Swaziland v. Hahn – Claim form sent by post – sent to defendant in England - defendant was not in
the flat – when received warned about claim form - didn’t go to the flat & left for Geneva – Court held that as the
defendant knew about the claim form that jurisdiction exercise over him.
 Choice of Law in Tort

• This allows recovery for any loss/ harm/ personal injury

• Nature of the damage/ size of the damage are considered when the damages are claimed

• Phillips v. Eyre – Phillips imprisoned – during a rebellion – by the Governor of Jamaica – passed an indemnity act
later - Lex loci Jamaica – claimant filed a case in England
▪ Wills J. laid down 2 conditions to be sued in England.
(1) Tort must be actionable in Lex fori (in the case England)
(2) Not justifiable in Lex loci delcti (in the case Jamaica)
▪ Held the Governor’s action was justifiable under the laws of Jamaica because of the Indemnity Act passed
later, the claimant lost the case.
▪ Not justifiable means must be a tort in Lex loci, must be actionable in Lex loci & Lex fori & must be a Lex loci
in civil & criminal matters

• Machando v. Fontes – Changes were added to the Phillips v. Eyre case

▪ Claimant claimed damages for an insultation – Defendant was only under a criminal liability
▪ Judge held that the case of insultation was not sufficient to claim damages in Brazil & that wrong does not
have a criminal liability
▪ Judge Lopez said for defendant to be successful, act must be innocent according to the committed country
▪ If claimant to be successful, the act must be innocent where it was done.

• McClean v. Pettigrew – Canadian case followed the Machando case

▪ Defendant gave a lift to Claimant – D driven negligently – had an accident – C was injured – both domiciled &
action happened in Ontario – appealed in Canada
▪ According to law in Ontario, Owner/driver is not liable for any injury/death of a person carried in the car
▪ Question was whether its justifiable when the D has driven negligently
▪ Under the traffic law in Ontario D’s act was wrong

• Tolofson v. Jensen – Pettigrew case overruled

▪ Claimant lived & accident happened in 2 places & showed that Double actionable rule could work injustice

• M’Elroy v. M’Allister – Agreed with Phillip’s case

▪ Claimant was a Scottish widow – husband died in accident in England – C & D both resided in Scotland
▪ Under Scottish law, no action for personal injury can be filed if the injured party is dead
▪ Under English law, damages could be claimed for the loss of expectation of life survived & the estate
▪ Held English Law (Lex loci delicti) & but not in Scottish Law (Lex fori)
▪ Case filled in Scotland & only awarded the funeral expenses

• Boys v. Chaplin – Agreed with Phillip’s case & overruled Machando’s case
▪ 2 British Servicemen – resided in England – stationed in Malta – had an accident – C was injured & D was
defendant
▪ Under the Law of Malta only C can recover expenses & loss of earnings (23 Pounds)
▪ Under the English Law, general damages for pain & suffering could be claimed (2303 Pounds)
▪ Damages in English law was not applicable in Malta but agreed to pay
▪ As it held that the actionability in Lex loci delicti rather than mere wrongfulness is required

• Double actionability rule was to be more flexible

• If the claimant wants to be succeeded, he should prove the civil wrong under Lex loci
• Above case proved the wrongfulness of Lex fori
 Jurisdiction & Choice of Law in Property

• Immovable generally a land, movable most property including right of action

• But jurisdiction may differ; right of the mortgage of a land is movable/immovable
• Jurisdiction in property cases
✓ English courts have no jurisdiction on foreign lands (only English lands)
✓ British South African Company v. Companhia de Mozambique – English courts have no jurisdiction on
immovable property situated outside England
✓ Exceptions to this rule;
I. When court has jurisdiction in personam over a defendant court can take action against him in respect of
a contract/foreign land
II. Where English court has jurisdiction to administer an estate/trust & part of the property is foreign land
III. Admiralty jurisdiction – maritime lines can be enforced anywhere in the world
• Choice of Law & Immovable
✓ Governed by Lex situs
▪ Formal validity of a transfer of an immovable
▪ Capacity to transfer land
• Choice of Law & Movable
✓ Looks whether the C has a proprietary right to the movable property which the D denying
✓ Hardwick Game Farm v. Suffolk Poultry Producers Association – Validity of a transfer of a movable
property is governed by Lex situs
✓ Winkworth v. Christie Manson & Woods – Stolen art taken to Italy – claimant in England – 2nd D handed
it to 1st D. Held that Situs changes in stolen goods & If the movable transferred validly according to its Lex
situs, that transfer is valid
• Dicey & Morris say if the situs is casual/not known, a transfer which is valid & effective, it’s valid in England
• Intestate Succession – when a person dies without a valid will, once his debts are remaining
✓ Movable property – Distributes according to the law of his last domicile
✓ Immovable property – Distributes according to its Lex situs (Royal Bank of Canada v. Krogh)
✓ Most of the other countries apply Lex situs to both movables & immovables
• Testate Succession – There must be a valid will
• The Formal Validity of a Will

Common Law Statute Law

✓ Will of movables has to comply with the law
of testator’s last domicile (problem if the
domicile has changed after the will)
✓ Will of Immovables has to comply with Lex
situs
✓ Formal Validity of Wills Act – A will shall be executed properly in force in the
territory of the testator’s death, he was domiciled/habitually resided/a state he
was
✓ Sec 27 Administration of Justice Act – A formally valid will in writing signed by
the testator & 2 witnesses & an authorized person (notary/solicitor) who the
attest the will & attach a certificate to the will

Capacity to make under the will or the essential validity of a will Capacity to take under the will
✓ Movable – Testator’s Domicile ✓ Recipient’s Lex Domicile
✓ Immovable – Lex situs
• A will is interpreted by the testator’s intended law. In the absence of that, by the Law of testator’s Domicile
• When revoking a will it’s done by Express revocation, by Implied revocation (governed by the law of testator’s
domicile), by Operation of law (governed by the law of testator’s domicile) and by Destruction (movable governed by
law of testator’s domicile & immovable governed by Lex situs)
• Trusts in common law it has no authority, but in statute law, Recognition of Trusts Act & Hague Conventions say that
if no law is chosen by the settler, the law of most closely connected will be applied
• Administration of an Estate
✓ A foreign representative must apply for recognition of English Court to deal with a property in England
✓ But generally, finds a representative from the deceased domicile, but its not bound to do so
 Family Law in Private International Law

• Capacity to marriage

Dual Domicile Test Intended Matrimonial Test

✓ Each person must have capacity to enter a ✓ Capacity of the parties determined by the domicile of
marriage, under the jurisdiction where they are the husband, likely to reside in that jurisdiction
domiciled immediately before the marriage ✓ It can be rebutted, by an intention to reside elsewhere

• Validity of a marriage

(1) Formal Validity

✓ Determined by the Lex loci celebrationis under the municipal on the date of the ceremony. (Law of the
country where the marriage is solemnized, must alone decide all the questions relating to the ceremony)
✓ Term “formality” includes whether a civil ceremony/ any ceremony at all is required the number of the
witnesses necessary.
✓ Lex loci celebrationis
▪ In England, formal requirement of Lex loci celebrationis must be settled in a marriage
▪ De Barros v. De Barros – In modern England, court held that the law of the country where the
marriage is solemnized must alone decide all questions relating to the ceremony.
▪ Privy Council held that a marriage will be valid, if the form adopted by the parties was in conformity
with the law of the country where their marriage took place, even without a proper form by the law
of domicile of the parties.

(2) Essential Validity

✓ Determined by the domicile of the parties at the time of the marriage.
✓ Major issue in relation to the choice of law in the context of the marriage, which law governs the capacity,
otherwise known as the essential validity.
✓ This question covers a wide range of issues such as, consanguinity (blood relationships), affinity
(relationships created by the virtue of marriage), re-marriage & lack of age.
✓ Generally, capacity to marry is governed by the dual-domicile rule subject to certain exceptions.

• Dual-domicile rule / Double-domicile rule

✓ Traditionally, capacity to marry is governed by the ante-nuptial domicile* of both the parties.
✓ Marriage will be valid under the law of domicile of the parties immediately before the marriage.
✓ This preserves the equality between the parties by looking to the laws of each of them.
✓ Question of capacity to the law of the intended matrimonial home is a rival theory to this concept.
✓ Cheshire says that the essential validity should be governed by the law of matrimonial domicile.
✓ His basic presumption is capacity to marry is governed by the law of husband’s domicile at the time of the
marriage, for normally where the parties intend to establish their permanent home.
✓ This presumption is rebutted when the parties intend to establish their home in a certain country within a
reasonable time.

• Exceptions to the Lex loci celebrationis rule

✓ Where the is no local form of marriage/ unable to comply with the form – in some cases it’s sufficient if the
common law requirements of formality are met.
✓ Some cases have departed from dual-domicile test and used intended matrimonial test, which can be used
to evade mandatory laws.
✓ Roman Dutch law test – If a marriage has contracted in a state other than the domicile to escape from the
essential requirements of Lex loci celebrationis, they act in fraudem legis, but their marriage will be tested
by local law as Lex domicile.
• Divorce & Nullity of the marriage
✓ Recognition of a degree of the marriage by a foreign court
✓ In Common law, only the court of matrimonial domicile had the jurisdiction to grant a divorce
✓ Armitage v. A.G. – Strictness of the rule reduced & non-domiciliary court recognize by the domiciliary court
✓ Traverse v. Holley – held that they claim mutas mutandis for themselves, as it would be contrary to the
principles of the law of the country
✓ Indyka v. Indyka – English court should recognize a divorce decree granted in foreign court. Where there is
substantial & real connection between the petitioner & the country

• Present law statutory; Family Law Act 1986 (FLA)

• Overseas divorce obtained by proceedings

✓ 46(1) FLA – The validity of an overseas divorce/annulment/legal separation shall be recognized if,
a) The divorce/annulment/legal separation is effective under the law of the country which it was obtained,
b) At the relevant date either party to the marriage was,
i. Habitually resided in the country in which the divorce obtained/
ii. Domiciled in that country/
iii. A national of that country

• Overseas divorce obtained otherwise than by proceedings

✓ 46(2) FLA – The validity of an overseas divorce/annulment/legal separation obtained other than by means of
proceedings if,
i. The divorce is effective under the law of the country which it was obtained,
ii. At the relevant date, each party to the marriage was domiciled in that country or either party was
domiciled in that country and the other party was domiciled in a country under whose law the divorce is
valid,
iii. Neither party habitually resided in UK throughout the period of 1 year before the divorce
▪ Eg; Thalaq was pronounced in England & sent wife to Pakistan, will not be recognized because
the divorce should start & finish in one country

• Effect of marriage in Property

✓ Choice of law rules applicable to matrimonial property are not clear
✓ Ante-nuptial contract terms are decisive
✓ Unless there’s no selected proper law/ no contract, the law of matrimonial domicile will be applied
✓ if the domicile is changed, then gets a new domicile

Forum Non-Conveniences

• Antares case – Canadian SC held that “A state will not exercise jurisdiction, if it’s a seriously inconvenient
forum(court) for the trail of the action provided, that a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff.”
• That refusal happens, when there’s more appropriate forum/ when there has no permit service of claim form from
outside jurisdiction. (Claim form is served under to RS O 0.11 on the ground that another court is more appropriate)

• Amin Rasheed Shipping Co. v. Kuwait Insurance Co.

✓ C Liberian ship company owner – lived in Dubai – Al Wahab ship with Kuwait Insurance Co.
✓ Governing law was EL according to the contract.
✓ But refused to grant leave as the Kuwait forum is the most appropriate to hear the case.
✓ Grant a leave – hearing case in England (C’s country), grant a stay – hearing in a foreign country (D’s wish)
✓ Injunction may be issued against the C by the English court, for proceeding in a foreign court when there’s a
more appropriate forum.
• Societe Nationale v. Lee Kui Jak
✓ Man killed in a helicopter crash in Brunei – descendants filled a case against helicopter manufacturer &
operator in Texas & Brunei.
✓ Cases sued in Texas on the basis that D did business there.
✓ But Privy Council issued an injunction against, saying that the more appropriate forum is Brunei.
✓ When court decided to grant an injunction, it directed not against the foreign court, but against the parties.

• History of Forum Non-Conveniences

✓ Earlier, EC rarely discontinued proceeding once claim form served within the jurisdiction.
✓ St. Pierre v. South American Stores – Scott J. held that “mere balance of convenience is not sufficient to get
the advantage of prosecuting the action in England.
✓ To justify a stay two conditions must be satisfied.
i. D must satisfy the court that continuing the action would do an injustice
ii. The stay must not course an injustice to the C
✓ In both, the burden of proof of above conditions lies on the D
✓ “legal chauvinism” is the inherent merit in EL should not be denied to litigants that foreign courts are lesser.

• Changes made to the St. Pierre v. South American Stores case

(1) Change 1 – Atlantic Star 1973

✓ Dutch ship owner brought an action against Belgium ship owner
✓ No responsible connection with England & court granted forum non-conveniens
✓ Lord Denning “right to come here not confined to Englishmen but extended to friendly foreigners”

(2) Change 2 – Mac Shannon v. Rockware

✓ Lord Diplock “2 conditions to justify a stay must be satisfied, one is positive & the other is negative”
✓ D must establish that another forum is better, less expensive & less inconvenience
✓ C must establish that stay in EC must not deprive his judicial advantage which would be available him if
he invoked the English court

(3) Change 3 – Abdin Daver – Lord Diplock “Legal chauvinism has been replaced by judicial comity”

(4) Change 4 – The Spiliada –

✓ Lord Goff “D may apply the court to exercise its discretion to stay on proceedings”
✓ Question is not the convenience but the suitability/ the appropriateness of the jurisdiction.

• Lis Alibi Pendens (Guidelines)

✓ This means “a law suit pending elsewhere”
✓ If 2 courts hear the same dispute, decisions may be inconsistent.
✓ Therefore, if the same case heard in a foreign court where the C is same in both, as the C trying to get both
opportunities, generally, 1st action commenced will be continued.
✓ If a C in England sued by a D in a foreign court, it will be depended on multiplicity of the proceedings & the
expenses also.