## Facts

- The proceeding arose on an administration summons in England to determine the validity and effect of Mrs. Sybil Annesley’s will as to her movable (personal) property.
- Mrs. Annesley was an English subject with an English domicile of origin.
- She married an English-domiciled husband and lived with him in England until 1866.
- In 1866, the couple moved to France and lived there continuously; her husband died in 1884.
- After her husband’s death, Mrs. Annesley remained in France for the rest of her life (almost 60 years in France overall) and died there in 1924, aged about 80.
- While living in France, she executed a will in English form that disposed of all her personal property (including property situated in England) and stated that she intended to retain an English domicile.
- Under English conflict rules, succession to movables depended on the law of the deceased’s domicile at death.
- A conflict arose because:
  - Under English domicile doctrine, the long residence and intention to remain indicated a French domicile of choice, pointing to French succession law that limited testamentary disposition of movables (allowing disposal of only a fraction, commonly stated as one-third).
  - Under French private international law for movable succession, the governing law tended to follow nationality; since Mrs. Annesley remained British in French law (having not completed formal steps for French nationality), French choice rules would refer to English law, which allowed full testamentary freedom over movables.

## Issues

1. Whether the deceased’s domicile at death (for English conflict-of-laws purposes) was to be determined by English rules of domicile, regardless of whether French law would treat her as domiciled in France.
2. Whether, on the facts, Mrs. Annesley had acquired a French domicile of choice under English law despite her expressed statement in the will and the absence of French-law formalities connected with nationality.
3. If France was the domicile under English law, whether an English court should apply (a) French internal succession law only, or (b) French law including its choice-of-law rules, given the risk of the matter being referred back to English law (renvoi).
4. Whether, applying the governing law, the will was effective to dispose of all movables or was restricted by forced-heirship style limits on the disposable portion.

## Decision

- The court held that the question whether a person is domiciled in a foreign country is decided by English rules of domicile, not by asking whether the foreign legal system would itself label the person domiciled there.
- On the evidence, Mrs. Annesley had acquired a domicile of choice in France under English law, notwithstanding her statement in the will and notwithstanding that she had not taken steps under French law associated with becoming French in nationality.
- For succession to movables, the court applied the law that would govern in France in the relevant situation and concluded (on the evidence of French law) that French municipal succession rules governed the testamentary disposing power over her movables.
- As a result, her will could not operate to dispose of the whole of her personal property; it was effective only to the extent allowed by French internal law, and ineffective as to any excess beyond the permitted disposable portion.

## Legal Principles

- In English private international law, domicile as a connecting factor is determined by English law (lex fori), even when the alleged domicile is abroad.
- A domicile of choice may be acquired by residence in a country combined with an intention to reside there indefinitely; it does not depend on the person having obtained local nationality or satisfied local formalities about status.
- A statement in a will asserting a particular domicile is evidence of intention but is not conclusive if the surrounding facts show a different settled residence and intention.
- In succession to movables, when English choice-of-law rules refer to the law of a foreign domicile, the court may consider the foreign system’s approach to the question and apply the law that the foreign court would apply; on the facts proved, this led to application of French municipal succession limits rather than unrestricted English testamentary freedom.
- Where the governing foreign internal law restricts testamentary disposition of movables, the English court will give effect to those restrictions even in relation to movables situated in England.

## Conclusion

In *In re Annesley*, the Chancery Division treated domicile as a forum-defined question, found that decades of exclusive residence in France established a French domicile of choice under English law, and then applied French succession limits to the deceased’s movable estate, with the effect that her English-form will could not validly dispose of all her personal property.


In re Annesley, Ch. 692 (1926)