Ramana v Kist-Ramana [2025] EWCA Civ 1022

Judgment date: 30 April 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/1022

Lewison, Moylan and Popplewell LJJ sitting in the Court of Appeal. An appeal by the wife against the decision of Williams J on 25 October 2024 after he dismissed an application for divorce for want of jurisdiction.

Background

The parties are Manisha Ramana, the wife, and Christnan Kist-Ramana, the husband. The parties are cousins by birth and both their families are Mauritian. The husband was born in England, moved to Mauritius as a baby and aged 4 was brought back to England. The wife grew up in Mauritius and came to England on a student visa in 2000. The parties met and married on 25 October 2003.

The wife was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK in November 2005 and obtained British citizenship in March 2018.

In September 2019, the family left England and moved to Mauritius. The marriage broke down and the parties separated in November 2020. The family remained living in Mauritius until 8 October 2022 when the wife travelled to England with the children. She commenced divorce proceedings here on 11 October 2022.

The husband subsequently commenced proceedings in England under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention on 15 November 2022 and issued divorce proceedings in Mauritius on 18 November 2022. The husband’s proceedings under the 1980 Convention were ultimately dismissed in May 2023. The divorce proceedings in Mauritius are continuing.

Appeal

The wife appealed the decision of Williams J (the judge) on 25 October 2024 by which he dismissed an application for divorce for want of jurisdiction. Williams J decided that the courts of England and Wales did not have jurisdiction because the wife was not domiciled here on the date of her application on 11 October 2022, this being the only jurisdictional ground on which she relied.

The issue which Williams J had to determine was, having considered that the wife’s birth in Mauritius fixed her domicile of origin in Mauritius, whether the wife acquired a domicile of choice in England at some point between her arrival in 2000 and her departure in 2019 and if so whether that revived upon her return in October 2022 or whether she acquired a domicile of choice in England for the first time between her arrival on 7 October 2022 and the issue of the petition on 11 October 2022.

The wife appealed based on her position having been that the judge failed to address the intermediate issue of whether the wife had lost her domicile of choice in England prior to 11 October 2022.

Moylan LJ considered that the court will need to determine whether the wife had lost her domicile of choice in England prior to 11 October 2022 and that the burden of proving this is on the husband which will require consideration of all the evidence (including what happened after the family left England in 2019). The court will also need to determine the husband’s application for a stay.

The parties’ positions regarding the factual background

The wife’s case was that the family had left England because of their financial circumstances and that they planned to stay in Mauritius for a limited period to save some money before moving to Singapore (where the prospects for developing the husband’s business were significantly better).

The husband’s case was that there was no intention that the family would return to live in England when they left in 2019, and that, if the wife had acquired a domicile of choice in the UK, it was lost when she returned to live in Mauritius. However, the husband had conceded in a statement (and in correspondence to the parties’ child’s school) that the family’s intention was indeed to move to Singapore.

Decision

Appeal allowed.

At first instance, Williams J only expressly referred to: (i) the acquisition by the wife of a domicile of choice prior to 2019 and its revival in October 2022 or, alternatively, (ii) the acquisition of a domicile of choice by her in October 2022. He did not refer to the need to consider the question of whether, if the wife had acquired a domicile of choice by 2019, she had lost it by 11 October 2022.

It was held that the wife must establish that she had lost her domicile of origin and had acquired a domicile of choice in England and Wales prior to 2019 (i.e. when the family left England). If she did, the husband then had the burden of proof of establishing that she had lost this domicile of choice prior to 11 October 2022.

At first instance, Williams J did decide that ‘the wife’s domicile of choice in England ended’. However, the judge did not include within his analysis evidence of what happened after September 2019 or consider evidence as to whether what had occurred after September 2019 was relevant to the question of whether the wife had lost the domicile of choice she had acquired in England prior to 2016.

Moylan LJ referred to Cyganik v Agulian [2006] EWCA Civ 129 (and other case law) and drew attention to Mummery LJ’s reference to the judge having wrongly divided the deceased’s life ‘into periods of time’ rather than considering the whole of his life.

The court ruled that this issue will have to be determined at the rehearing as whether the wife had lost her domicile of choice was, therefore, an issue which the judge at first instance was expressly required to address. In addition, Williams J was wrong when he referred only to the wife as having the burden of proof.

It was determined that the matter was to be remitted for rehearing so that the court can determine (i) whether the wife lost her domicile of choice in England prior to 11 October 2022; and (ii) whether the proceedings should be stayed.