Court of Appeal confirms English domicile despite move to Italy

The Court of Appeal has dismissed a husband’s appeal in Ferrara v Ferrara, confirming that the wife retained her domicile of choice in England and Wales despite having moved to Italy with the family in 2019.

The issue was significant because the wife had issued divorce proceedings in England and relied on her English domicile to establish the jurisdiction of the English court. The husband argued that, by moving to Milan and living there for several years, the wife had lost any English domicile of choice and had become domiciled in Italy.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. The wife had lived in London for most of her adult life, from 1992 until 2019, had studied and worked there, had built her modelling career there, had married and raised her children there, and had her closest personal and professional connections in England. The court accepted that she had acquired a domicile of choice in England well before the move to Italy.

The key question was whether she had abandoned that domicile when she moved to Milan. The court confirmed that residence in another country is not enough. A domicile of choice is not easily lost. It is necessary to show that the person has ceased to intend to reside permanently or indefinitely in the original jurisdiction.

On the facts, the wife had moved to Italy reluctantly and had not formed a settled intention to remain there permanently or indefinitely. The judge had been entitled to accept her evidence that she regarded the move as temporary and intended to return to England. Importantly, there was no requirement for her to have a clear or detailed plan to return. A subjective intention to return, if accepted by the court as genuine, can be sufficient.

The Court of Appeal also emphasised that clear and cogent evidence is required to establish a change of domicile. The husband had not met that burden. The wife’s presence in Italy, her Italian passport, and the fact that she had not returned regularly to England after 2019 did not outweigh her long-standing English connections and her retained intention to return.

The case is a useful reminder that domicile is a deeper and more persistent connecting factor than residence. Moving abroad, even for several years, does not necessarily mean that a person has lost an English domicile of choice. The court will look closely at the individual’s real intention, and not merely at where they happen to be living at the time.