The Acting Deputy Comptroller-General of Customs and Public Trustee has requested advice as to the nationality of Mrs K.G.S.

It appears from the file submitted-

1. that Mrs S. was in January 1908 originally married in British Columbia to T.K., a Canadian;
2. that that marriage was dissolved on 19 February 1909, by decree of a court of the State of Washington, U.S.A.;
3. that subsequently Mrs 5. married her present husband, P.S., who at the date of marriage was a naturalized American citizen, but since coming to Australia has lost his American citizenship and reverted to his German nationality;
4. that the validity of the divorce from K. has been questioned by Mrs K., who states that her Canadian solicitors informed her that the divorce decreed by the American court would not be recognised in Canada as it was granted on the ground of cruelty and non-support whereas the law of British Columbia requires proof of infidelity; and
5. that Mrs 5. accordingly contends that her marriage with S. is invalid and that she is still the wife of K. and therefore a British subject.

According to Eversley and Craies, Marriage Laws of the British Empire, 1910 edn, p. 246, the general law of England as to divorce is in force in British Columbia. I presume that the general law means, or at least includes, the common law which applies in Victoria where the S.'s are, apparently, at present domiciled.

Now it is an established rule of English law that English courts will recognise a decree of a foreign court having jurisdiction to grant the decree. In order that the court may have jurisdiction the parties must be domiciled in the country in which the suit is brought (Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 2nd edn, p. 383 et seq.). The only question in the present case is, therefore, whether the court in Washington State had jurisdiction to issue the decree and, in my opinion, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it must be presumed that it had jurisdiction.

In my opinion, therefore, the marriage of Mr and Mrs S. must be deemed to be valid and Mrs S. 's nationality is accordingly that of Mr S.

[Vol. 18, p. 257]

(1)This dats is attributed.The Opinion is undated in the Opinion Book, but its postion, in relation to adjacent opinions, suggests a date towards the end of january 1922.