Taylor J:

The facts appear sufficiently from the judgment.

In this divorce suit the question of domicile was tried as a preliminary issue.

Both parties are English and admittedly their domicil of origin was in England.The husband claims to have acquired a domicil of choice in Singapore.The question is whether he has established himself here in the sense of a man who has not only quitted his country of origin but has also settled in a new country.There must be not only a physical settlement but also a settled state of mind, an animus manendi.

The burden of proof on the party alleging this is specially heavy and is also difficult because the fact to be proved is the intention either of a man who has died or of a living man whose declarations are suspect because they are post litem motam. No particular fact is decisive.There is no generally applicable test. A fact such as buying a house is highly significant in one case but unimportant in other circumstances.The question can be answered only on a critical review of all the circumstances of the man's life up to the material date.

The husband in this case is by birth a Londoner and by profession an analytical chemist.During the war he worked as a scientist for the Home Government.Then he started a chemical manufacturing business at Chesterfield.This still exists but did not prosper to his satisfaction.He could have obtained salaried work in England but for years he had been hankering to go abroad so, after considering available vacancies in Egypt and Australia, he finally accepted Crown Agent's appointment and came to Singapore.

He sold his house at Chesterfield but anyone who was going abroad for a number of years would do that.It has no more significance than the sale of his car.It was suggested that he resolved at that time not again to reside permanently in England. I do not accept that suggestion but in any event such a resolve would by itself be inoperative.His domicil of origin would survive even the firmest determination to reside out of England, until he became settled elsewhere.His mother's affidavit relating to that period has no weight whatever.

He was posted to Singapore and became ordinarily resident here with his wife and two children.The move, however, did not heal a pre-existing rift between his wife and himself and after about five months she returned to England with the younger daughter.The elder daughter, then aged six years is said to have elected to stay with him.Her election may be discounted by the fact that she stayed had a bearing later.

In 1951 the Government proposed to transfer the husband to Kuala Lumpur where, owing to the shortage of official quarters, he would have had to live in a hotel, probably for at least six months.This would have been highly unsuitable for a motherless daughter of seven years.

It so happened that a rare and almost unique vacancy in the profession of Chemistry occurred in Singapore just at that time. A commercial firm interested in chemicals and metallurgy wished to have a laboratory and the husband was introduced to them.It was arranged that they would finance the setting up of a laboratory in which he would work and train staff and, as their requirements would not fully occupy him, he was allowed private practice in addition.Also they provided a house for him.He took the post on these conditions, the Government accepting a month's notice.

Up to that date there is no doubt that his domicil of origin survived.He liked his work in the Government laboratory and had there been quarters for him in Kuala Lumpur he would have submitted to the transfer.Had his daughter already been at boarding school he might not have demurred to the hotel.Had they proposed to send him to Rhodesia or Cyprus he would probably have accepted, provided that a house was available.

In the event, he had to choose between quitting the public service and remaining in Singapore.He had to balance the prospects.The question of residence, if not dominant,