JUDGMENTBY: THOMAS, CJ, WHITLEY, J, HOWES, J

THOMAS, CJ This is an appeal by George Lionel OHara Hickson the petitioner in a divorce petition which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not established a domicile choice.

In the evidence the petitioner stated that he had left Ireland, where he had been born in 1887, and where his father was domiciled, in 1906 when he went to take up tea planting in Assam. In 1911 he left Assam, and came to this country where he opened up the Bhutan Estate, built all the buildings on the estate including the Managers house, and eventually became the Manager of the Estate. From 1911 until the present day he has resided on the estate save when he obtained periods of leave. During his leave in 1913 and 1919 he visited Ireland where his parents still resided. On the latter visit he only spent four or five weeks in Ireland. He found things extremely bad there under the Sinn Fien troubles, and considered it impossible to continue living there. His brother who lived at Fermoyle had been turned out by the Sinn Fien. At that time the appellant says that he definitely decided that it was his last visit to Ireland. His father died in 1920 and he, the petitioner, quarrelled with his mother on account of his marriage.

This took place in Singapore in 1922. A son was born in 1923. In 1924 he went on leave and lived near Maidstone in Kent. In 1928 he again went on leave and stayed in Guernsey. And in 1932 he again went on leave and stayed in Guernsey.

It will thus be seen that the petitioner has not returned to Ireland since 1919, and according to his own statement even prior to his marriage he had formed the intention of not returning to Ireland.

By 1926 his wife had taken to drink to excess and in consequence the appellant had been put to great expense which crippled him financially and caused him to borrow sums from the Bhutan Estate which he is repaying by instalments. It does not appear that the appellant is possessed of any private means whatever. It would seem that he is entirely dependent on his earnings as Manager of the Bhutan Estate.

In 1934 the appellant petitioned for a divorce from his wife naming one Levas Levinsonas as co-respondent. In that petition it was stated that the domicile of the appellant and his wife was within the State of Selangor.

Neither the wife nor the co-respondent entered an appearance or attempted to defend. In his evidence the appellant whilst giving the facts which have been already set out, made the following statement:--

"When I have to retire, I propose to settle in this country, but I have

made no plans about that. That is my fixed intention."

None of these statements have been controverted by the respondent or co-respondent.

The learned Judge who heard the petition said that he thought that the appellant was a candid witness and he was prepared to accept what he said. He did not, however, consider that the statement of facts made by the appellant was sufficient to prove that he had acquired a domicile of choice in Selangor.

Statements of intention may be received even from living persons and may be weighed with the other evidence [ Crookkenden v Fuller (1895) 1 Sw & Tr 441, 164 ER 804]. The weight to be given to them may depend upon the degree of credit given to the person making them ( Udny v Udny LR 1 Sc & Div 441).

When such statements are controverted and are encountered by conflicting declarations, they may be rejected [see Bryce v Bryce (1933) P 83]; and so also when made in such an important document as a will, provided that the statement is not borne out by other actions (see Attorney General v Yule 145 LT 9). But when the statement is made by a living person, and is supported by some definite action, it may be upheld, even though controverted [see Boldrini v Boldrini (1932) P 9].

In that case Lord Hanworth, M. R. said:--

"The learned President in his judgment not only shows that he is fully

aware of all t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document