421691
| Question | Answer |
| Key classic Renvoi case: | Collier v Rivaz 1841 |
| Collier v Rivaz 1841 Principle per Sir Herbert Jenner? | Ct sitting in one country decides as it would sitting in the country of the law being applied. |
| Collier v Rivaz 1841 Facts? | Eng nat, Belgian dom, died intestate in Eng; Probate sought in E which consider lex causae the lex domicile (B): Some codicils formally invalid viz B law. Eng ct applied B law in the round. Re intestate succession, B law applies law of nat, ie. Eng. All codicils formally valid viz Eng law. |
| Factors against use of renvoi | time, expense, complexity, uncertainty, regulatory prohibition |
| ...no question of renvoi need be encountered at all. When the *709 law of England requires that the personal estate of a British subject who dies domiciled, according to the requirements of English law, in a foreign country shall be administered in accordance with the law of that country, why should this not mean in accordance with the law which that country would apply, not to the propositus, but to its own nationals legally domiciled there? In other words, when we say that French law applies to the administration of the personal estate of an Englishman who dies domiciled in France, we mean that French municipal law which France applies in the case of Frenchmen. This appears to me a simple and rational solution which avoids altogether that endless oscillation which otherwise would result from the law of the country of nationality invoking the law of the country of domicil, while the law of the country of domicil in turn invokes the law of the country of nationality... | Re Annesley 1926 per Russell J |
| Re Annesley 1926 Facts? | English woman... |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.