Banaras Hindu University

Subject: - Private International law

Topic: - Concept of Renvoi in Conflict of Laws: Analasis

Submitted To:
Dr. Raju Majhi

SUBMITTED BY: Himanshu Chaudhary

ENROLLMENT NO: 372209

EXAM ROLL NO: 14137LA050

FACULTY OF LAW, BHU, VARANASI

Date:-
2 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

Acknowledgement
It was a great pleasure for me to prepare a project in one of the most
important topic of the Private International Law while dealing with
the topic “Concept of Renvoi in Conflict of Laws: Analysis”
I came across many points related to it and tried my best to express it
in this project. This project is mainly focus on Meaning, definition,
concept of Renvoi, Doctrine of renvoi in conflict of laws. I have made
special endeavors to present the subject matter in the simple,
systematic and lucid manner.
I am grateful to all those who helped me in writing the project, without
their help, it was not possible to complete this project. I am also
grateful to Dr. Raju Majhi for giving me to prepare and present this
topic.
Thank you
Himanshu Chaudhary
3 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

Contents
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

2. Meaning & concept of renvoi……………………………………………………………………………………. 5-6

3. Doctrine of Renvoi & Different Approaches………………………………………………………………..7-9

4. Forms of Renvoi………………………………………………………………………………………………………10-12

5. International Judicial Response & Major Dilemmas Pertaining To the Doctrine………13-18

6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19

7. Bibliography.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20
4 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

1. Introduction
Conflict of laws or Private international law constitutes the legal principles and rules
governing international private relations. It thus gives rise to that branch of law which deals
with cases where some relevant fact has a geographic connection creating a “foreign
element”, and that raises a question regarding jurisdiction and which law applies i.e. arises
when there are one or more legally relevant foreign elements, resulting in two or more
different laws competing relative to a person, act or fact, or to a single thing and there is
doubt about which law should apply.

Being one of the most theoretically challenging concepts in private international law,
generations of conflict-of-laws scholars have debated the question and concept of Renvoi.
It is the instant topic under study in the due course of the research paper. Renvoi is a
French term which literally means sending back. In precise terms, when the choice of law
process points a forum court to another jurisdiction's law, the question that arises is: how
much of that other jurisdiction’s laws should apply? Does the reference to the other law
include that jurisdiction's choice of law principles, or, alternatively, does it include only the
jurisdiction's "internal law" principles? If the reference includes both internal law and
conflicts principles, the foreign conflicts principles may point the inquiring court back to the
forum's law or to a third jurisdiction's law. This question--whether a forum should consult
the choice of law rules of other jurisdictions--is called renvoi.

Authors and experts like P.R.H.Webb,.Brown, Morris and Dicey, however have suggested in
their work that the concept of Renvoi is not an important and significant concept as far as
its quantity and quality goes and have elaborated it by saying that in relation to Renvoi only
two matters are required to be considered namely- its meaning and the extent of its
application.1 To get a deeper understanding and a critical analysis of the concept of renvoi
and its place in the private international law , the researcher proposes to look into the
aspects like Doctrine and Approaches of renvoi 2, its specialized forms of single and multiple
renvoi, judicial responses pertaining to the concept of renvoi from the courts of United
Kingdom, United States of America and France .the judicial responses have special
importance as the position before the courts can be looked into through the decisions only.
The project is limited to the extent of focusing on the doctrine of renvoi only and not other
concepts of choice of laws involved in the private international law.

1
1. P.R.H.Webb and D.J.L.Brown,(London: Butterworth Publications,1960) P.60
2
2. Here in after referred as doctrine.
5 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

2. Meaning & Concept of

Renvoi
Renvoi: - The word “Renvoi” is derived from the French word “Renvoyer” which
means "send back" or "to return unopened”. Renvoi is a subset of the choice of law rules
and it may be applied whenever a forum court is directed to consider the law of
another state. The “Doctrine of Renvoi” is the process by which the court adopts the rules
of a foreign jurisdiction with respect to any conflict of law that arises. The idea behind the
doctrine is that it prevents forum shopping and the same law is applied to achieve the same
outcome regardless of where the case is actually dealt with. The system of Renvoi attempts
to achieve that end.

 According to Dictionary meaning, 'renvoi'  is a term in private International law to denote

the sending, or determination, of a matter or according to the law of a tribunal outside the
jurisdiction where the question arose. Apparently, the courts of France, Italy and Germany
will apply the law of nationality, and where the law of nationality, as in England, applies the
law of domicile, the latter law appeared to have been applicable under the local law in
Germany. When a special reference has been made to a foreign system of law through the
operation of the connecting factor, the question arises of the definition of the meaning of
foreign law. Considered an illustration as under....

Suppose A, a British subject whose domicile of origin was English, died intestate domiciled
in France, leaving movie property in England. The general principle of English private
international law is that in case of a diseased intestate, distribution must be made
according to the law of the deceased's domicile at the date of his death. The question now
arises, shall distribution be made according to French Internal Law as applied to the
distribution of French movables  of French subjects domiciled is France, or shall it be
according to French law in the wider sense, which includes French private international
law? The result of the answer may well differ in the two cases. French law in fact governs
distribution of movable by the deceased's nationality, and accordingly, the application of
French Law on this fact in its wider sense would result in a remission or Renvoi to English
law.
6 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

When a case is complicated in this fashion, owing to a difference in the private

international law of two countries, three possible suggestions are Apparent.
These are: 

i) The judge me take the 'law of France' to mean the internal law of France; or

ii) He may decide the case on the assumption that the doctrine of renvoi is recognized by
English law; or

 iii) He may take the 'Law of France' to mean the law which a French judge would
administer if he were seized of the matter.

For example: - If a judge seized of a country X is referred by his own rule for the choice of
law to the law of country Y, but the rule for the choice of law Y refers such a case to the law
of X, then the judge in X must apply the internal law of his own country.   The operation of
this famous but regrettable doctrine, which demands that a reference to the law of a
country shall mean a reference to the whole of its law, including its private international
law, is best explained by the following example: X, a British subject, dies intestate,
domiciled in Italy, and an English Court is required to decide the mode in which his
movables found in England shall be distributed. The English Court is directed by its own
private international law to refer this question of distribution to Italian law as being the  lex
domicili of the deceased. When however, it examines the provisions relating to the conflict
of laws contained in the Italian code, it finds that in the case of succession to movables they
prefer the lex partiae of the deceased to his lex domicili, and that if an Italian court had
been seized of this matter in the first instance, it would have resorted to the law of England.
Thus, the English Court finds itself referred back to English law as being law of X's
nationality. There is a Renvoi  or remission to English law.
7 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

3. Doctrine of Renvoi & Different

Approaches.
"The paper and ink devoted to the renvoi problem had already been so great a number of
years ago that one author recorded in despair that 'Juristic speculation has been almost
infinite." 3

The theory of the renvoi was formulated fifty years ago by continental writers and courts,
and caused a considerable discussion. Wherever the statutory theory is accepted, and the
laws of the two states concerned differ as to whether the law of the nation or the law of
the domicilee shall be applied, a troublesome doubt appears. Where the law of the forum
provides that a juridical event shall be governed by a certain foreign law, and that foreign
law in turn remits it to the law of the forum to determine by its law, the situation arises
which has been termed as renvoi. Here, it can be seen that a probability of a situation of
“choice of law rules” appear it, at least on occasion, will direct the application of some law
which might be some law other than the law of the forum. That, after all, is the point of
choice of law. When they do, the forum court might in the process decide what it means to
apply the law of another state.

As hinted in the course of the introduction, generally it is the Court who is in charge to
determine which of several different jurisdictions’ laws applies to the case before it. The
question of what law applies is a question the court answers by consulting the law of its
own state; that is, it is a question of forum choice-of-law doctrine. If the forum’s choice-of
law rules direct the application of forum law, the court proceeds to apply the forum’s
substantive or internal law: the tort, contract, or other law that determines the parties’
substantive rights. The forum’s choice-of-law rules might also direct the application of
another state’s law. And at this point a question arises. Should the court, when instructed
by forum law to apply the law of another state, apply that state’s internal law, or should it
apply the state’s entire law, including its choice-of-law rules? The latter might seem the
obvious choice—applying a state’s law, after all, presumably means reaching the same
results that the courts of that state would reach—but it opens the door to an alarming
possibility. Now, the researcher at this point wants to submit that the doctrine that a
reference to the law of another state is a reference to the entirety of that state’s law is the

3
Dean Erwin Griswold commented in 1938.
8 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

doctrine of renvoi, and the question of whether it should be followed—whether, in choice

of-law terminology, the renvoi should be accepted or rejected—stands out even among the
great jurists of conflict of laws.4

In an illustrative form if explained, what is meant by ‘law’ when a reference is made to

foreign law; for example, does a reference to ‘Indian law’ mean Indian internal law, or the
whole of Indian law, including its conflict of laws rules? The word ‘law’ is ambiguous and a
number of approaches have been suggested in this regard. Different models of renvoi
therefore have to be looked into to avoid further confusion and ambiguity regarding the
concept under study.

The theory of the renvoi as stated by Professor Schreiber is as follows: “When the Conflict
of Laws rule of the forum refers a jural matter to a foreign law for decision, is the reference
to the corresponding rule of the Conflict of Laws of that foreign law, or is the reference to
the purely internal rules of law of the foreign system; i.e., to the totality of the foreign law
minus its Conflict-of-Laws rules?”5

In the course of its development and towards finding a solution the doctrine of renvoi has
been off late understood internationally on the basis of two approaches namely: The
Traditional Approach and The Modern Policy-Oriented approach.

The Traditional Approach:

The traditional jurists are of the opinion that axiom of territoriality, the principle that “the
law of a state prevails throughout its boundaries and, generally speaking, not outside them.
They believe it impossible, in fact, for the law of one state to operate as law within the
borders of another state. From this premise flows the conclusion that only the law of the
state where an event occurred can attach legal consequences to that event, and choice of
law becomes largely a matter of determining the place of occurrence. The traditionalists in
this sense are therefore concerned with establishing “localising” rules to determine where,
for example, torts are committed or contracts formed. This theory of territoriality, as
propounded by the traditional thinkers, might seem to offer an easy answer to the renvoi
problem. If foreign law can never apply within the forum state, then obviously the forum
cannot apply foreign choice-of-law rules. But this answer, as should be immediately
apparent, has been criticized by many jurists related to different schools including the
realist or modern approach school as it comes at the price of scuttling the whole choice-of-

4
4. Joseph M. Cormack, “Renvoi, Characterization, Localization and Preliminary Question in the Conflict of Laws”, 14 S. CAL. L.
REV. 221, 249 (1941)

5
5. Ernst Otto Schreiber, “The Doctrine of the Renvoi in Anglo-American Law”, 31 Harvard Law Review p. 525 (1917).
9 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

law theory: if the forum can never apply foreign law, how is it to adjudicate cases dealing
with events that occurred in other states?

The Modern Policy-Oriented Approach:

The controversy concerning the renvoi has abated in recent past, as scholars seem to have
working hard on the claims related to the doctrine of renvoi. In this regard, the Modern
policy jurists or realists are of the opinion that in choice of law foreign choice of rules can
be ignored as the legislative jurisdiction should be allocated based on the policies which
mainly underlie the substantive laws at issue, and general choice-of-law rules were not
developed with these policies in mind. Regarding this approach the experts have said that
the fundamental insight of modern theory is that the applicability of a law is a pure
question of interpretation. As most legislation does not specify its territorial scope, it hints
at filling the gaps by reference to a law's purpose. But states are free to adopt any different
approach to interpretation if they deem it appropriate and in total accordance. 6

It can be clearly seen that the modern or realist approach and the traditional approach, are
quite similar, each relies primarily on rules of scope and has at best a rudimentary conflicts
rule. The solutions advanced by the policy-oriented approaches are essentially the same as
those offered by the traditionalists, and they suffer from the same defects and thus the
doctrine has not been able to get a conclusive shape and structure.

6
6. Larry Kramer, “Return of the Renvoi”, 66 N.Y.U. Law. Review. 979, 980 (1991)
10 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

4. Forms of Renvoi
After looking into two main approaches related to the Doctrine of renvoi, the researcher in
this part of the research paper proposes to analyze the main forms of renvoi, namely single
renvoi and double renvoi or multiple renvoi. However, in certain cases there exists a
situation when there is no renvoi also.

Single renvoi: -
Single Renvoi a renvoi which is available when the court of the forum has a choice to apply
the foreign choice of law rules, accept the remission to its law by the foreign law and apply
the law which it would have applied had the case been entirely domestic to the forum, or in
the case of transmission, the domestic law of the third country. This requires proof of the
choice of law rules of the foreign country but not of the foreign rules about renvoi. This is
called single renvoi.
Countries such as Spain, Italy, and Luxembourg operate a “Single Renvoi” system. This
system refers to another jurisdiction’s choice of law rules. Where the matter arises in a
jurisdiction such as Spain, Italy or Luxembourg (A), those jurisdictions will consider whether
their own domestic law is the applicable law or if the applicable law is that of another
jurisdiction (B). Where B’s rules might return the issue to A, (the original forum court), the
court will accept the first remission and apply its own domestic laws.
For example, where a testator, who was a French national, was habitually resident in
England but domiciled in Spain, dies leaving moveable property in Spain, the court may
need to consider which legislative forum will apply to deal with the property under
succession laws.
In this case, Spain being the law of the forum, i.e. where the property is situate, applies the
law of the deceased’s nationality, namely France and applies French law. French law
observes the law of the deceased’s habitual residence which is England. England however
examines the domicile of the deceased, which is Spain.
As two transfers took place, (from Spain to France and from France to England), Spain,
operating the Single Renvoi system, will not accept it back. Accordingly, the Spanish court
being the law of the forum, will apply the law where it was last left in the chain of referral
i.e. with the law of England and Wales.
Where both countries operate with either no renvoi system or single renvoi systems, there
is a potential problem.
11 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

Double or Multiple renvoi: -

Double or Multiple Renvoi is a renvoi which is applicable when the court of the forum may
resolve the issue in the same manner as a court of the legal system selected by its choice of
law rules might resolve it had the foreign court exercised jurisdiction in the same case on
the same facts. This method requires proof not only of the choice of law rules of the foreign
country but also the foreign rules about renvoi. This is called double renvoi.
Unlike Spain, some countries such as England and France currently accept renvoi twice.
However in this system there can never be more than two remissions.
For example, let’s consider the following case whereby a testator, an Irish national,
habitually resident in Spain but domiciled in Italy, dies leaving moveable property in France.
France, being the law of the forum (where the assets are situate) will examine the law of
the deceased’s habitual residence Spain and applies Spanish law. Spanish law observes the
law of the deceased’s nationality which is Italy. Italy, as a jurisdiction that only operates a
single renvoi system, will not accept the Double Renvoi and it is likely that in this case
France will apply Italian law.
Double renvoi is a form of renvoi whereby, parity of result is ensured by the forum court.
The forum court resolves the issues in the same manner as a foreign court selected by its
choice of law rules might resolve it. Double renvoi is enforced by the forum court when no
other relevant law is specified to resolve the dispute. In this scenario, the forum court
considers that it is sitting as the foreign court and will decide the matter as the foreign court
would. In this system, there can never be more than two remissions. Double renvoi is
known as the foreign courts doctrine. I t is also known as multiple renvoi. 7
All these forms of renvoi can be best explained with the help of illustrations and best
illustration as given in the class by Professor. Jaya govind is of an English Citizen who dies
intestate domiciled in Italy, leaving movables in England. The English conflict rule refers to
the law of the domicilee (Italian law) but the Italian conflicts rule refers to the national law
which is English law. At last it becomes a conflict of conflicts rules.
(a) Court might apply the domestic rule of the foreign country that is the law of the
foreign country applicable to a purely domestic situation arising therein.
The English Court would thereby apply Italian law. Estate would go down according to
Italian law. This method requires proof of the domestic law of the foreign country but not
its conflict rules. This will be known as no renvoi.

7
7. [Dellamarggio v. B-Line, LLC (In re Barker), 306 B.R. 339 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2004)].
12 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

(b) If the conflict rule of the foreign country refers back to the law of the forum or on to
the law of a third country, the court might accept the reference and apply the domestic
law of the forum or the domestic law of the third country.
So we need to know Italian conflicts rules. The English Court would thereby apply the
domestic rule of English law, disregarding the fact that the intestate was domiciled in Italy.
This method requires proof of the foreign conflicts rules relating to succession but does not
require proof of the foreign rules about renvoi. This method will be known as a single
renvoi.
(c) The court might decide the case exactly as it would be decided by the foreign court.
If the Italian Court would refer to English law and would interpret that reference to mean
English domestic law, the English Court would decide using English domestic law.
If the Italian Court would refer to English law and look at domestic law plus the conflict of
laws rules, it would "accept the renvoi" from English law and apply Italian domestic law,
then the English Court would apply Italian domestic law.
This method requires proof of Italian domestic law, conflicts rules from that country, and
renvoi rules. This is known as total or double renvoi or multiple renvoi.
13 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

5. International Judicial Response & The Major Dilemmas

Pertaining To The Doctrine
In order to analyze the judicial and thus legal position of the doctrine of renvoi in
international context, it is important to first see the Application of the doctrine; the
doctrine has been applied to:
 formal and intrinsic validity of wills

 cases of intestate succession

 Legitimating by subsequent marriage.

However, there are indications by the courts and the jurists that it might apply to:
 Formal validity of marriage Capacity to marry.8
The Major Dilemmas and Judicial responses:
The main difficulties in the application of the doctrine as highlighted by the judicial
responses and various conventions curtailing its scope are as follows:
The Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations in a way has curtailed the
scope of doctrine of renvoi for the European continent at least as this convention is an
European Community Convention. The Article 15 of the convention clearly excludes the
operation of the renvoi by stating that “the application of the law of any country specified
by this Convention means the application of the rules of law in force in that country other
than its rules of private international law.”
Experts like Dicey and Morris have highlighted a major difficulty in the application of the
renvoi9, according to them the major difficulty is the unpredictability of outcome as also
highlighted in the case of Re Duke of Wellington10 where Wynn-Parry Justice also
commented that the doctrine makes everything dependant on the evidence of foreign
experts. It requires proof not only of foreign choice of law rules, but of foreign rules about
renvoi. Also, such unpredictability is due to the reason that in the continental nations, the
decided cases of the court of first instance are not considered as authorities and are not

8
8. Supra Note 1 at pp.64-65.
9. Dicey and Morris, Dicey and Morris on Conflict of Laws (London: Sweet and Maxwell publications ,2000) at pp.76-77.
10. [1947] Ch 506, 515.
9
11. Dicey and Morris, Dicey and Morris on Conflict of Laws (London: Sweet and Maxwell publications, 2000) at pp.76-77

10
14 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

binding as authorities to be followed and the doctrine has a tendency to change

according to times.11
Also, there may be an inextricable circle. The effect of applying the doctrine of renvoi is to

make the decision turn on whether the foreign court rejects the renvoi doctrine or adopts a

theory of single or partial renvoi. But if the foreign court also adopts the doctrine of total

renvoi, then logically no solution is possible unless either, in the case of English court for

instance, the English or the foreign court abandons its theory, for otherwise a perpetual

circulus inextricabilis is constituted. As Dicey and Morris remark12, ‘It is hardly an argument

for the doctrine of total renvoi that it is workable only if the other country rejects it’ and

also hinted in the case of Re Askew13.

In the famous case of Collier v. Rivaz14, One person named Ryan, a British subject, died

domiciled in Belgium. He left certain testamentary papers executed in accordance with the

formalities required by English law, but not in accordance with those required by Belgian

local law. It was proved by the necessary expert evidence that the Belgian courts if called

on to decide the question of validity would uphold the testamentary documents, on the

ground that they were valid according to the testator's national law. Sir Herbert Jenner in

his judgment observed that the whole basis of decision is that the court sitting England to

determine the question must consider itself sitting in Belgium, that is, the court is only

concerned to see what view the Belgian court would take of the English law, and it was

never suggested that it was the duty of the English court to consider what its own view of

the English law ought to be. The result in Collier v. Rivaz could not have been arrived at if

the English court had refused to take into account the rules of private international law

11

12
12. Ibid at p. 78
13
13. [1930] 2 Ch 259,276.
14
14. (1841) 2 Curt. 855
15 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

applied by and recognised in the Belgian courts, and had merely applied the ordinary local

law of Belgium applicable to Belgian nationals.

This case was however disapproved in Bremer v. Freeman15, where, a British subject died

domiciled de facto in France. She had made a will in France in English form; the will dealt

with movables, the bulk of which were situate in England. The testatrix had not obtained

from the French government an authorisation to acquire a French domicile. Sir John

Dodson admitted the will to probate on the ground that, though the testatrix had her

domicile \de facto in France, yet that it was necessary in order to establish a domicile in

France such as would affect her succession and the mode of making her will that her

domicile should be by authorisation of the French government. The judge, Sir John Dodson,

expressly said he was following Collier v.Rivaz. The decision was reversed in the Privy

Council. The judgment was delivered by Lord Wensleydale where he observed that “On the

whole, then, on a review of all this evidence of the law of France, their Lordships are clearly

of opinion, that it is not established, that for the purpose of having a domicile which would

regulate the succession, any authorisation of the Emperor was necessary; that a legal

domicile for this purpose was clearly proved, and that consequently, if the testatrix had a

power to make a will at all, the will in this form was invalid”. Therefore privy council refused

to probate the will of British subject who died domiciled in France in English sense and in

England in the French sense on the ground that it was made in English but not in French

15
15. (1857) 10 Moo. P C. C. 306
16 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

form. The reasoning of court is thus ambiguous as it presents a case for and also at the

same time against the doctrine.16

Next in line is the case of Re Johnson17, where the doctrine was applied in a case of partial

intestacy, is the first case in which the word "renvoi" appears to have been used. The facts

are shortly as follows. In 1894 a British subject - one Mary Elizabeth Johnson - whose

domicile of origin was Maltese, died intestate and domiciled in Baden. She was not

naturalised there, and the evidence in the case established that by the law of Baden the

succession to her property was governed by the law of her nationality. She left movable

property in England and Baden. Farwell, J., directed the movables in England to be

distributed according to Maltese law.

The decision was based on two alternative grounds:-

First, that it is impossible according to English law for a person to acquire a domicile of

choice in a foreign country unless that person has also acquired a domicile there according

to the law of the foreign country; therefore, in the particular case, as the law of Baden

refused to recognise domicile as having any legal effect on the status of Mary Elizabeth

Johnson, the succession to her movable property must he determined according to the law

of her domicile of origin; that is, Maltese law. This view of the English law as to domicile is

not consistent with other decisions, The second group of the decision is based on the

assumption that Mary Elizabeth Johnson was at her death domiciled in Baden, and that the
16
16. Dicey and Morris, Dicey and Morris on Conflict of Laws (London: Sweet and Maxwell publications ,2000) at p.68

17
17. [1903] 1 Ch. 821
17 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

law of Baden governed the succession to her movable property. It was found by the

certificate which was binding on the parties in the case that, according to the law of Baden,

the legal succession to that part of her property which she had not disposed of by her will

was governed by the law of the country of which she was a subject at the time of her death.

Thus, this decision was considered to be inconsistent with the well settled rule under

English law which says that for the purpose of an English conflict rule domicile means

domicile in the English sense.

Also, in the case of Re. Annesley18, Russel, J. introduced the concept of Total or Double

renvoi for first time and applied the French domestic law as the law of the domicile on the

ground that a French court would have applied the same logic by the way of renvoi from

English law. The facts of the case in brief are that one Mrs. Sybil Annesley lived in France for

60 years. She didn't treat her children equally in her will, daughters probably getting cut

out. She made a couple of wills where she stated that her domicile was England. She had

visited England in 1892, 1903, 1907, 1911, and 1913. The Immovable were in France only

and the movables were in both France and the U.K, she may have been trying to leave

corpus of estate in England due to heavy estate duty in France. In Nov. of 1919 she made

holograph French will, then in Dec of 1919 she made an English form will. The issue thus

was - was her domicile in England or France? The question was also asked about the validity

of English will? If domicile was France, testatrix could only dispose of 1/3 of personal
18
18. (1926) Ch. 692
18 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

property because 2/3 would go to daughters under French law, due to forced share to issue

law of France. It was held that the Domicile was French.

19 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

6. Conclusion

So, At last I conclude that as a purely practical it would seem that a court should not

undertake the onerous task of trying to ascertain how a foreign court would decide the

question, unless the situation is an exceptional one and the advantages of doing so clearly

outweigh the disadvantages. In most situations, the balance of convenience surely lies in

interpreting the reference to foreign law to mean its domestic rules. Although the doctrine

of renvoi was favoured by Westlake and dicey, the great majority of writers, both English

and foreign, are opposed to it. Lorenzen said: ‘notwithstanding the great authority of

Westlake and dicey, it may reasonably be hoped that, when the doctrine with all its

consequences is squarely presented to the higher English court, they will not hesitate to

reject the decision of the courts that have lent colour to renvoi in English law”. There is no

case which prevents the court of Appeal (still less the House of Lords) from reviewing the

whole problem, and it is submitted that such a review is long overdue.

8. Bibliography
20 | Concept of renvoi in conflict of laws: Analysis

Books

 Renvoi and presumption about foreign law: Martin Davies

 Themes on the conflicts of law: Prof I.O Agbede.

 Conflicts of laws: John O’Brien. Second edition.

Websites

 www.google.co.in

 www.Indiankanoon.co.in

 www.westernlaw.co.in