【Case Study】

(1) T,a British subject of English domicile of origin,died domiciled in France in the English sense,but not in the French sense because she had not obtained authority from the French government to establish her domicile in France as required by Article 13 of the Code Napoleon.She left a will which purported to dispose of all her property.By French law,T could only dispose of one-third of her property because she left two children surviving her.Evidence was given that a French court would refer to English law as T’s national law and would accept the renvoi back to French law,French domestic law was applied and T’s will was only effective to dispose of one-third of her property.The English court then,applied French law.This is a classic case in which the double renvoi of English doctrine was employed.

(2) Neilson v.Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd.[2005] HCA 54 (29 September 2005).

Mrs Neilson,an Australian national,injured herself falling down the stairs in her apartment in Wuhan,China.Her apartment had been provided by her husband’s employer Overseas Projects Corporation,an Australian company.Mrs Neilson sued her husband’s employer in negligence in Australian in 1997,six years after the accident had occurred.Under Australian choice of law rules,the law governing tort situation is lex loci delicti,i.e.the Chinese law,under which the claim would have been statute barred for exceeding the limitations period.However,the Supreme Court of Australia found in favor of Neilson on the basis that Australia accept renvoi back to Australia law,and thus the Australian limitations statute applied,meaning that Neilson’s claim was no longer statute barred.(https://www.daowen.com)

(3) Schwebel v.Ungar [1964] 48 DLR (2d) 644.

A Jewish husband and wife,domiciled in Hungary,married in Hungary.While they were emigrating to Israel,they found themselves in Italy and the husband divorced his wife by “gett”.Under the laws of Hungary (their lex domicilii) and Italy,the religious form of divorce was invalid,but it was recognized as effective by the law of Israel where they acquired a domicile of choice.Subsequently,the wife moved to Canada and,without abandoning her Israeli domicile,went through a second ceremony of marriage.The second husband petitioned for nullity alleging that the marriage was bigamous.The Supreme Court held the marriage to be valid.The main question was the wife’s capacity to marry which,under Canadian law,is determined by her lex domicilii,i.e.the law of Israel at the time of the second ceremony.The incidental question was the validity of the divorce which was to be determined either by their lex domicilii at the relevant time or by Italian law as the lex loci actus.The judgment seems to suggest that the court decided both questions by reference to the law of Israel as the law governing the main question.