In some cases, there is more complications and difficulties, especially when Transmission

exists. For instance, a citizen of state X domiciled in state Y may leave movable and immovable
property in two or three states. This may give rise to transmission. At times, there may be resort
to that is called double or total renvoi.

Now, after we have analyzed history, etymology and also definition of doctrine of renvoi, we
will be able to discuss two types of renvoi and some relevant cases.

Types of Renvoi

Before a judge resort to the doctrine of renvoi, there is a solution of application of internal law
only. But if there was no room for application of internal law, then judge may apply the proper
type of renovi.

As it is well known, renvoi has two types. We will discuss both kinds of renvoi in some length.

1. Partial or single Renvoi

Partial of single renvoi applies in a case when rule of law of a country refer it to another
country, but law of later country again refer the case to the law of the former. In this stance,the
judge of the country applies laws of his own country, but after the second country refer it.

The following case which is presented by AblaMayss as an example to describe this type of
renvoi, would further illustrate it:

In Re Ross1, an English women, whose domicile of choice was in Italy. She died in Italy and left
there movable and immovable property as well as some movable property in England. She had
made a will about her movable and immovable property in Italy and England. This will was
valid in English law but invalid in Italian law as she did not leave half of the property for her
son. As she was domiciled in Italy, the English court referred the case to Italian court. Under
English conflict of laws the issue was governed by the law of the domicile of the Italian law.
However, under Italian conflict of laws, the issue was governed by the nationality of the English
law. Hence, the Italian court referred the issue back to the English court, which held that the
will was valid.

Another important case was that of Forgo which was decided in the court of Cassation of
France:

1
(1930) Ch. 377
1
Forgo, an illegitimate Bavarian national, was born with a domicile in Bavaria, but lived most of
his life in France without ever acquiring a “domicile” under French law. He left movable
property in France but no relatives except for some remote collateral relatives of his mother.
These could not succeed him under French law, and under French law the property, being
ownerless, would go to the French state. Under Bavarian law they could succeed. The French
court would determine the question by applying Bavarian law but the state argued that the
Bavarian courts would apply French law, and the French courts should do otherwise.

The case was decided in favour of the French state, and it is obvious that the reference here was
to the Bavarian rules of conflict.

The principle of single renvoi is completely seen in the “Re Askew case” 2. The Father was
British national domiciled in Germany. Under English law, the child couldn't be viewed as
having been legitimated as when the child was conceived the father was married to another
lady. The court connected German law, being the law of the domicile of the child father; that
the law alluded to English law being the law of the nationality of the father; this is turn implied
alluding to German law, and as German law "acknowledged" renvoi the child was viewed as
legitimated as she would have been respected under German law.

2. Total or double Renvoi

Total or double renvoi is also known as “foreign court theory”. Cheshire and North defines total
renvoi in these words: “This demands that an English judge, who is referred by his own law to
the legal system of a foreign country, must apply whatever law a court in that foreign country
would apply if it were hearing the case.”

An example of total renvoi:

S, an Englishwoman of British domicile of origin, died domiciled in France in the English

sense, but not the French sense because she had not obtained authority to establish her domicile
in France as required by Article 53 of the Civil Code [she failed to comply with registration
formalities]. She left a will which purported to dispose of all her property. By French law, S
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 S’s national law would
accept the renvoi back to French law. French domestic law was applied and S’s will was only
effective to dispose of one-third of her property.

2
[1930] 2 ch 259
2
The double renvoi doctrine is completely seen in Re Annesley3 case. A women, who was a
national of Britain died, having made her will. The will was substantial if English law was
relevant however was invalid under French law as she had not left two-third of the estate to her
children. She had under English law, gained a French domicile, yet under French law she was
not viewed as having a French domicile. The court held that the French law was appropriate and
connected the entire French law including French Conflict of Laws guidelines under which the
entire English law was relevant, as the law of her nationality, and after that connected French
law as the French court would "accept" the renvoi.

In Collier v. Rivaz4, A British subject who died domiciled in Belgium made a will as indicated
by the types of English however not of Belgium law, when the formal legitimacy of will relied
on upon the law of the deceased benefactor's domiciled at the date of his death. Sir Herbert
Jenner, over the span of his judgment, said "The court staying here chooses from the proof of
the people talented in that law and chooses as it would if sitting in Belgium". He chooses that
the Belgium law just applies to will as made by Belgium subjects and that the wills of the
foreigners should under that law be controlled by the law of their nationality. The will was in
this way tried by English law and held substantial.

This theory of double or total renvoi or it might be known as the foreign court theory is
obviously stopped not quite the same as the theory of single or partial renvoi in light of the fact
that, by inquisitive how the foreign court would chose the case.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Renvoi

Same like other academic discourses, the doctrine of renvoi has its advantages and
disadvantages. There are some scholars who focused on the benefits of this doctrine and see it
as a useful doctrine and a proper solution. On the other hand, some jurists are against it and look
at it as an inconvenient solution.

Advantages:

Those who favour renvoi provide many arguments, we summarized it in these points;

A. First vital benefit of renvoi is, by resorting to foreign choice of law rules, the courts avoid a
foreign internal law that has no connection with the propositus. Clarkson and Hill defines it in
simple words:
3
[1926] ch 692
4
[1841] 2 Curt-855
3
It is claimed that it is self-defeating to purport to apply a foreign law unless one applies the
solution that would actually be applied by the courts of the foreign country.

Then they provide an example describing this:

If a British person dies intestate domiciled in Mexico leaving a movable estate in England, a
court would be applying the law of nowhere if it were to apply Mexican domestic lawand
ignore the fact that a Mexican court would not itself apply Mexican law, but would treat the
case as a conflicts case and apply English law.

B. The second great advantage is said that in sometimes it promotes the reasonable expectation
of the parties. This happened in Re Annesley case.

C. The third is; it is often stated that the principal reason for resorting to total renvoi is to
achieve uniformity in terms of the resolution of the case, irrespective of the country in whose
court the claim is brought. If the English court decides the case in exactly the same way as the
court of a foreign country would decide it, by using the foreign counrty’s conflict rules,
including its rules of renvoi, then uniformity with that country results.

Disadvantages:

A. Doctrine of renvoi also has some opponents. They presented very important arguments
against this doctrine. These arguments could not be overlooked; this is why we summarized it in
these points;

B. There are practical difficulties involved in the application of renvoi. One arises when the
conflict rules of foreign country refer to the law of a person’s nationality, and the person
concern is a national of the UK or the US. In some cases it is not certain which law should be
applied.

C. Another difficulty arising where foreign law refers to nationality; easy for unitary states, but
problematic for federal states.

D. Another criticism of renvoilays, while English court deciding what the foreign country’s
rules of renvoi are, especially when the question is unsettled in the foreign country itself.

E. Another, that renvoi subordinates English choice of law rules to those of a foreign system.

4
F. Also, one of the practical problems with the doctrine of renvoi is that it generally requires
detailed expert evidence about the state of foreign law.

5
CONCLUSION

Difference in starting point between single renvoi and double renvoi, single renvoi does not
oblige courts to ask how foreign court would choose matter, nor consider probability that
foreign court may accept renvoi; distinction in result between both is that, if foreign law alludes
to law of forum, that law constantly connected under single renvoi yet not perpetually
connected under double renvoi (depends if foreign country accept renvoi) Single renvoi country
does not consider Foreign country's renvoi rule; not impacted by contemplations if foreign court
would have accepted renvoi, connected its own domestic law. The double renvoi teaching is
utilized as a part of England and France rest of the Europe is taking after single renvoi theory.
Presently a days the English Courts are regularly utilizing the Double renvoi theory and not give
so significance to signal renvoi by utilizing double renvoi the Judges of English courts ventures
into the shoes of thejudge of the foreign country and considered that the renvoi may have been
accepting utilizing the conflict rules of the forei for choosing the case.

6
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 http://www.ijssh.org/papers/196-G10028.pdf

 The Doctrine of Renvoi in International Torts: Mercantile Mutual Insurance v Neilson

(2005) 13 Torts Law Journal 1
 Renvoi and International Torts Litigated in Australia (2005) 1(1) Journal of Private
International Law 35
 Clarkson, CMV and Hill, Jonathan, The Conflict of Laws (Oxford: Oxford University
Press)