Munro v. Munro

It supplies the formula that the Supreme Court of India adopted in Kedar Pandey for the abandonment of a domicile of origin: animo et facto. It is a short chapter, because what the course gives is the statement of principle, quoted in the Indian judgment.

This course quotes the case within Kedar Pandey and does not set out its facts.

The domicile of origin must prevail until the party has not only acquired another but has manifested and carried into execution an intention of abandoning his former domicile and acquiring another as his sole domicile. To effect that abandonment and substitution it is required animo et facto — the choice of a place, actual residence in the place then chosen, and that it should be the principal and permanent residence.

Step one — abandonment and acquisition are one operation. It is not enough to leave; a new domicile must be taken. That is what keeps the rule that nobody is without a domicile true, and it is why the domicile of origin revives where a domicile of choice is abandoned without another being acquired — Udny v. Udny.

Step two — the intention must be executed, not merely formed. The words manifested and carried into execution require conduct, which is why a declared intention unsupported by residence achieves nothing.

Step three — three elements to check. Choice of the place; actual residence there; and that the residence be principal and permanent. A problem answer that runs those three in order rarely goes wrong.

It opens: What is required to abandon a domicile of origin? — quote the three elements and attribute the formula as Kedar Pandey does.

Set it beside Lord Westbury in Udny, quoted in the same judgment: a domicile of choice is a conclusion or inference which the law derives from the fact of a man voluntarily fixing his sole or chief residence in a particular place with the intention of continuing to reside there for an unlimited time — with the rider that the residence must be freely chosen and not prescribed or dictated by external necessity such as office, creditors or illness.

Then mark the Indian narrowing. Kedar Pandey rejects Moorhouse v. Lord, which required a change of national allegiance, and settles the test at an intention of permanent residence. An answer should present Munro as the accepted description of the mechanics and Kedar Pandey as the authority on how much intention is needed.

It does not decide anything about the domicile of dependence, or about the revival of the domicile of origin; both belong to Udny.