Domicile of choice meaning

Use this checklist to identify which EU Member State’s courts are competent to hear a dispute. It does so by referencing the provisions of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast), applied to allocate jurisdiction. The starting point is that proceedings should be brought against a defendant in the courts of the Member State where they are domiciled. That position is displaced by various specific rules. Some of those exceptions bite automatically, while others operate only where the claimant elects to invoke them. The articles are applied in the hierarchy shown in the table below: if the first provision is not engaged, consider the next, and proceed accordingly... Determining jurisdiction Type of jurisdiction Consideration Mandatory/by choice Brussels I (recast) Exclusive jurisdiction: in certain prescribed situations, the courts of an EU Member State have jurisdiction irrespective of any contrary party agreement or of the parties’ domicile...

ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. In Brussels I (recast), the relevant provisions appear in art 25, whereas in Brussels I they were set out in art 23. A central concern during the recast was to guarantee that the regulation’s rules on choice of court agreements were strengthened so those agreements would take full effect. This mattered because of their practical importance for international commerce. To tackle this, the reforms not only amended existing terms but also added new ones. The choice of court agreement provision, formerly art 23 in Brussels I and now art 25, has seen four principal changes; another alteration being cross‑referencing to other articles. The intention was that jurisdiction clauses be fully upheld in practice, and this requirement underpinned the recast exercise from start to finish throughout. Brussels I (recast) Brussels I Commentary Issues which arise Article 25(1): the provisions apply regardless of the parties’ domicile. Repealed: part of art 23(1) previously applied only if one...

In this issue: Court of Protection UK taxes for Private Client HMRC Manuals tracker Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Budgets and Finance Bills Charity and philanthropy Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland International Question of the week Additional Private Client updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Court of Protection MoJ issues factsheet on claiming payment from a fund after a Court of Protection client’s death The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has released a factsheet (CFO 401) that explains how to seek payment from money held by the Court Funds Office when a Court of Protection client has died. The guidance, which applies in England and Wales, specifies the form to use, the accompanying documentation required, and the steps for arranging payment of inheritance tax and funeral expenses. See: LNB News 24/12/2024 10...

Weis v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2025] UKFTT 348 (TC) What was the background? This matter concerned the Appellant’s domicile for tax purposes, namely Mr Aubrey Weis, who was born and brought up in Salford, Manchester. His father, Pinkas Rudolph Weis (PRW), fled Eastern Europe and settled in Salford in 1939. As a Jewish family, they were not safe there and had to escape. PRW lectured in Semitics at Manchester University and built a small portfolio of properties. In 1972 he left the UK, said to be retiring to Israel (though he also became a naturalised US citizen). The Appellant lived in Israel from 1967 to 1970, but returned to Salford as a newly married man; soon after, he started a family and began his own property career. He maintained that he always intended to retire to Israel on reaching 75. He appealed HMRC’s determinations on the footing that he did not have an English domicile. The issues before the Tribunal were: did the Appellant’s...

Nilsson and another v Jones [2026] EWHC 319 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Debtor applicants and prospective trustees in bankruptcy should note: even if the statutory criteria for bankruptcy are satisfied, the court may refuse or annul a bankruptcy order where it would achieve nothing or treat creditors unfairly, especially (though not exclusively) in cross-border matters where principal assets sit outside the jurisdiction and cannot be realised the court’s discretion applies equally where an order was made by the bankruptcy adjudicator under the administrative scheme, not only where the court itself made the order the judgment underlines the need for debtors, trustees in bankruptcy, and creditors to evaluate practical enforceability in cross-border contexts and to provide evidence that assets are capable of realisation for creditors’ benefit when seeking to show a different domicile, the party alleging change bears the burden of proving that a domicile of choice has replaced the domicile of origin, through both residence and an intention...

This Practice Note has been prepared in collaboration with Anthony Partridge of Ogier, Cayman Islands, and Wisdom Hon of Ogier, Hong Kong. Introduction For individuals who are not domiciled in the Cayman Islands but personally hold assets located in the Cayman Islands, they may put in place a separate Will governed by Cayman Islands law to dispose of those assets and ease the subsequent probate process. Under Cayman Islands law, the governing law for both the formal validity and the essential/material validity of a Will made by a person domiciled abroad depends on the nature of the assets concerned. For immovable property situated in the Cayman Islands, the applicable law is the lex situs, namely the law of the Cayman Islands. For movable property, including cash held in bank accounts or shares in Cayman Islands companies (such as Cayman Islands exempted companies), the applicable law is the law of the deceased’s last domicile. It should be noted that not all shares connected with the...

Numerous issues about an individual’s personal status are determined by their personal law. The chief aim of identifying domicile is to locate that personal law by weighing links that tie the person to a jurisdiction with its own legal system. Every person must possess a domicile. It is not possible to be without domicile, nor to possess more than one at once. An individual’s domicile also regulates personal relations such as marriage, legitimacy and succession, and is thus central to estate planning. General principles of domicile In 1985, the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission undertook a joint review of the English and Scots laws on domicile and proposed certain statutory reforms (Law Com No 168). Those proposals were never implemented. Even so, the report helps to summarise English legal principles, some of which are not clearly settled by the case law. every person has a domicile; one cannot lack a domicile, nor can one hold more than a single domicile at any time...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Potential changes to Wills Act 1837 The Law Commission’s review of wills culminated in a final report on 16 May 2025. Volume II contains a Draft Bill proposing replacement of the Wills Act 1837. For details of these proposals, including the published draft legislation, see Practice Note: Hot topic—modernising Wills and Modernising wills: Final Report Volume II: Draft Bill for a new Wills Act. STOP PRESS: Abolition of non-dom regime and introduction of residence-based IHT regime The Finance Act 2025 (FA 2025), which received Royal Assent on 20 March 2025, implements the abolition of the remittance basis and introduces a residence-based regime from 6 April 2025. FA 2025 makes residence, rather than domicile, the main determinant of liability to inheritance tax. changes to the rules defining excluded property status; removal of protected settlements status for offshore trusts; and modifications to overseas workday relief. For further information, see Practice Notes: The abolition of the remittance basis of taxation...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Potential changes to Wills Act 1837 On 16 May 2025, the Law Commission’s review of Wills published its final report, formally setting out its conclusions, with Volume II containing a draft Bill intended to supersede the Wills Act 1837. For details of these proposals, including the published draft legislation, consult Practice Note: Hot topic—modernising Wills and Modernising wills: Final Report Volume II: draft Bill for a new Wills Act. STOP PRESS: Ending the non-dom regime and moving to a residence-based IHT regime. The Finance Act 2025 (FA 2025), which obtained Royal Assent on 20 March 2025, enacts legislation for the removal of the remittance basis of taxation and substitutes a residence-based system commencing on 6 April 2025. It also displaces domicile as the principal determinant of inheritance tax (IHT) liability for individuals. Further measures cover revisions to the rules for excluded property status, the removal of protected settlements status for offshore trusts, and alterations to overseas workday relief as applicable. For more on these reforms, see...

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: Potential changes to Wills Act 1837 The Law Commission’s review of wills published its final report on 16 May 2025, with Volume II setting out a draft Bill aimed at replacing the Wills Act 1837. For details of these proposals, including the published draft legislation, see Practice Note: Hot topic—modernising Wills and Modernising wills: Final Report Volume II: draft Bill for a new Wills Act. 1 Revocation I [ full name of testator ] of [ address of testator ] cancel all earlier testamentary dispositions made by me [ but only in so far as they concern my property of every description within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ] and state that this is my last Will. [ I also cancel any prior appointments of guardians of my minor children made by me before the date of this Will. ]...