 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 65 7.5. Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier.- But Niboyet1 did not retain its sway for long, and in Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier, 1895 AC 517 (PC) domicile was regarded as the only test for the exercise of jurisdiction. It was not a case relating 'to the jurisdiction of English courts, but had an indirect impact thereon. Since it was decision of the Privy Council, it did not formally overrule the decision in Niboyet v. Niboyet; but the rule laid down was unquestionably regarded as a rule valid for the exercise of jurisdiction by English Courts also. Thus, in Indyka v. Indyka, (1967) 2 All ER 689 (720). Lord Wilberforce observed-"Le Mesurier was not a case concerned with recognition at all, but it would not be right merely to dispose of what was then said as obiter dicta. For, not only have later cases on recognition made it a ground of their decision, but also the reasoning itself rests on the hypothesis that a common legal structure can be found to contain both the domestic jurisdiction of English courts and recognition by them of foreign decrees." 1. Niboyet v. Niboyet, para. 7.4, supra.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back