ON APPEAL FROM PRINCIPAL REGISTRY (FAMILY DIVISION)
HHJ HOROWIZ QC
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
(SIR BRIAN LEVESON)
LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
LADY JUSTICE MACUR DBE
| Wai Foon TAN
|- and -
|Weng Kean CHOY
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Timothy BISHOP QC & Mr Stephen TROWELL (instructed by Dmh Stallard LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing dates : 28 January 2014
Crown Copyright ©
Lady Justice Macur DBE :
"24. In the domestic jurisprudence of England and Wales there has been a dispute as to whether the expression "resided", as used in the fifth indent (and in indents 2 and 6) is intended to encompass a different (and lesser) quality of residence than the concept of "habitual resident" that has already been used in the indent.
25. The judge in the present case sided with the view that the two expressions do mean something different, but nevertheless concluded that the husband had been "habitually resident" in England not only at the date of the institution of the divorce proceedings but throughout the whole of the preceding 12 months. Therefore, the dispute as to the possible difference in meaning between the two expressions is only relevant if (i) the judge misconstrued the meaning of the expression "habitually resident" itself: and/or (ii) erred in his conclusion that habitual residence during the whole of the relevant 12 months was made out on the evidence."
Lord Justice Aikens:
"There is a serious question whether [the husband] has abandoned his Malaysian domicile of origin notwithstanding the presumption of continuance referred to in the expert advice. That of itself raises an initial hurdle to be considered before substantial progress can be made in the Malaysian proceedings".
Sir Brian Leveson P: