- The Court of Appeal decision in Ramana v Kist-Ramana dealt with the evidential burden and evaluative approach for assessing domicile of choice in the context of divorce jurisdiction.
- The decision reinforces the need for practitioners to take a nuanced and evidence-based approach.
The concept of domicile remains a cornerstone in determining jurisdiction in family law proceedings, particularly in cases involving international elements. The recent Court of Appeal decision in Ramana v Kist-Ramana [2025] EWCA Civ 1022 provides clarification on the evidential burden and evaluative approach required when assessing domicile of choice in the context of divorce jurisdiction. For practitioners, this case demonstrates the importance of a holistic and fact-sensitive analysis, especially where parties have moved across borders and their intentions for relocation are contested.
Legal framework
Domicile of origin is acquired at birth and typically reflects the domicile of the father, assuming the parents are married. In cases of unmarried parents, the father’s domicile may still
