The question in issue in these proceedings was that of the domicile at the date of his death of the deceased Eu Keng Chee otherwise known as K. C. Eu to whom hereafter I shall refer as the deceased. I was informed by counsel that his domicile of origin was Perak and it was not in dispute that he had acquired a domicile of choice in Singapore where he resided from 1925 to 1956. In December 1956 he left for Hong Kong and died there over three months later on the 2nd April 1957 and the plaintiffs (his widow and only son), who are the executors and trustees of his estate, contend that on arrival he became domiciled in Hong Kong by the combination of residence and the intention of permanent or indefinite residence there. This is disputed by the defendant who maintains that the deceaseds domicile of choice is Singapore which has not been abandoned and that at the date of his death he was still domiciled in Singapore.

There is a presumption in favour of the continuance of an existing domicile and, therefore, the burden of proving a change lies on the plaintiffs. This presumption may have a decisive effect for if the evidence is so conflicting or indeterminate that it is impossible to ascertain with certainty what the residents intention was, the Court will decide in favour of the existing domicile. See Winans v Attorney-General [1904] AC 287. The intention to abandon a domicile of choice must be unequivocal though the evidence necessary to establish it is less strong than that required to establish the acquisition of such a domicile. See In re Lloyd Evans decd [1947] Ch 695.

The deceased was married twice. His first wife was an English woman from whom he was divorced and by whom he had two children, a son, the 2nd plaintiff, and a daughter who is now married and resident in the United Kingdom. In 1939 the deceased married his now widow, the 1st plaintiff, who was born and brought up in Singapore where her family resided and she has lived here all her life. There were no children by this marriage but three girls were adopted aged 13 years, 1 year and 1 year respectively at the date of the deceaseds death, and they have lived in Singapore all their lives. The eldest adopted daughter now aged 16 has just recently left for England for further educational studies. The son appears to have been set up in business in Singapore by the deceased and was secretary of the various companies of which the deceased was managing director. Since the death of the deceased, he is now the managing director of an insurance company in the Federation of Malaya.

It appeared, that between 1949 and 1955 the deceased and his wife made seven visits to Hong Kong each of about three months duration and of these, two were made in 1955, one in January and the second in May. The deceased did not visit Hong Kong again until December 1956.

In June 1955 a joint bank account in the names of the deceased and his wife was opened in Hong Kong. At one or other of the two visits made to Hong Kong in 1955 the deceaseds wife purchased in her own name two flats in Conduit Road, Hong Kong, and also a Vauxhall car which she left there on returning to Singapore. I do not myself consider these matters of any great importance or assistance in determining the intention of the deceased. The opening of the bank account by the deceased is in keeping with the desire of a man of his financial standing to have funds readily available at his disposal and the acquisition of the car by his wife consistent with a desire to have her own transport always ready at a place where they were frequent visitors. It is unlikely, I think, if the deceased intended to retire to Hong Kong permanently at the end of 1956 that his wife would some 18 months or more before in 1955 purchase a car which she never used or had the benefit of it during that period. The wifes evidence was that when they returned to Singapore from their May 1955 trip, the car was left in Hong Kong at "E