Doctrine of Renvoi is one of the main principle under the application of Private International Law. When conflict of law arises before the foreign courts, the court will resolve the issues by applying the doctrine of renvoi.

1. By,
Vidya M.N
Associate Professor of Law

2.  Issues to be decided in conflict of law cases:
1. Which court has jurisdiction to decide the case?
2. Which law should be applied?
3. How will foreign judgement be recognized and enforced?
 The procedure for conflict of law cases
1.The court must first decide whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the case (which will involve
addressing the question of whether the plaintiff is attempting to manipulate the judicial system
by forum shopping).
2.Characterisation - The court must analyse the case as pleaded and allocate each component to its
appropriate legal classification, each of which will have one or more choice of law rules attached to it.
[ applicability of law, connecting factor, cause of action]
3.The court will then apply the choice of law rules. In a limited number of cases, usually
involving Family Law issues, an incidental question may arise which will complicate this process.
[Recognition and Enforcement of foreign judgement]

3. Structure of the Conflict Law Rule –
 Rule of law as a directive of behaviour
 Direct or indirect legal regulations, conflict of laws as the object matter of
indirect rules.
 Main purpose – NOT TO SOLVE THE CASE, just to give the law applicable to a
distinct questions
 ‘A natural person’s legal capacity and capacity to perform juridical acts (legal
transactions) is governed by the law of his or her nationality’.
 ‘Law of one’s nationality’ (lex partriae) – POINT of CONNECTION
 ‘Legal capacity’, ‘Capacity to act’ – OBJECT of the CONNECTION

4.  Connecting Factors –
 Personal Connecting factors:
 Nationality of a natural person
 Domicile (permanent residence) of a natural person
 Habitual residence of a natural person
 Seat of a moral person
 Place of foundation/incorporation of a moral person
 Objective connecting factors – eg., the situation of the immovable property (lex situs rei) or
tangible object, the place of conclusion of marriage, etc.
 Subjective connecting factors - based on the will of a person = choice of law by the interested
party /ies.
 Some connecting factors point to the law of the place where an event or transaction took place,
such as the place of celebration of marriage.
 Other connecting factors point to a law that is connected to a person that is involved in the
dispute, such as the law of their domicile or habitual residence.
 Questions of title to immovable property are governed by the law of the country in which the
property is situated.

5. A glossary of connecting factors –
 Lex loci contractus: the law of the place where the contract was made.
 Lex loci solutionis: the law of the place where the contract is to be performed.
 Lex loci celebrationis: the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated.
 Lex loci delicit: the law of the place where the tort was committed.
 Lex domicilii: the law of the place where a person is domiciled.
 Lex patriae: the law of the nationality.
 Lex situs: the law of the place where the property is situated.
 Lex fori: the law of the court in which the case is heard.

6. Meaning of Renvoi:
 Renvoi – a French term (English terms ‘remission’ or ‘transmission’ rarely used), standing
for ‘sending back’ or ‘forwarding’ or ‘Returning’.
 Eg., law applicable to successions in Poland basically national law of the deceased, in
France – the law of his/her last domicile (movables) or the law of the situation of property
(immovables), ‘split successions’ scheme
 The Doctrine of Renvoi is the process by which the Court adopts the rules of a foreign
jurisdiction with respect to any conflict of laws that arises.
 The idea behind this doctrine is to prevent forum shopping and the same law is applied to
achieve the same outcome regardless of where the case is actually dealt with.
 The Court sees that the issue will be chosen as per the law of another nation, it is when
regulation of renvoi assumes its job in taking care of the issue. It’s a method to take care
of the cases in which there exists a foreign element.

7.  Sometimes court sees that the issue will be decided in accordance with the law of another
country, it is the time when doctrine of renvoi plays its role in solving the problem.
 For the first time Renvoi was used in Collier Vs. Rivaz case (1841). In this case, which
was about formal validity of wills, Single Renvoi was used.
 This status of the Renvoi doctrine remained until, when Russell .J in Re Annesley (1962)
introduced the Double Renvoi doctrine into English law.
Justification of Renvoi:
 Designation of a law applicable has a general meaning (we mind the whole system of the
law as in force in the country, including its conflicts rules)
 Respect for the foreign sovereignty.
 Coordination of diverging connecting factors, striving for the international harmony of
decisions.

8.  Jason Chuah defines Renvoi as “According to this theory, an English judge who is
referred by English law to a foreign legal system must apply whatever law a court in that
foreign system would apply. Naturally, this depends on whether or not that foreign legal
system recognises the doctrine of Renvoi.”
 In some cases, there is more complication 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 what is called Double and Total Renvoi.
Variants of Renvoi
 Renvoi au premier degree or the remission – we are coming back to the initial point (i.e. to
lex fori)
 Renvoi au second degree or the transmission – the conflicts rule is the system of law
specified as applicable refers to the law of third country (eg., capacity of an Englishman
domiciled in Germany to sign a promissory note in Poland)

9. Lets understand Renvoi with a Case Study –
 The very first matter to be decided by a court in any case is the ‘matter of jurisdiction’.
 Once it is decided that a court has jurisdiction and what choice of law are applicable, the
judge will apply the chosen law and if the chosen law is English law, the judge is
required to give effect to English internal law.
 For eg., where a person dies interstate domiciled in England, here his property will be
distributed by following the English internal laws relating to property. There is no
requirement to give attention to private international law.
 But if the application of law is that of a foreign country the situation becomes complex.
The difficulty is to determine what is meant by ‘applicable law’?

10.  Example- X, a British subject, dies interstate, domiciled in Italy and an English court is required to
decide how his movable property in England are to be distributed?
X (British
subject) Domiciled in Italy
English Court
MOVABLE PROPERTY
• According to the English law for choice of law
regarding interstate succession to movable property
is governed by the law of domicile of the person
concerned.
• i.e., in this case Italian law as being the law of X’s
domicile at the time of death.
• But according to the Italian law it must be referred to
the law of England as being the law of his
nationality.
• When such a situation is faced, owing to the
difference in the private international laws of the two
countries, there are 3 possible solution:
• Option 1 – Take the ‘law of Italy’ to mean the
internal laws of Italy; or
• Option 2 – Decide the case on the assumption that
the doctrine of single renvoi is recognised by
English law; or
• Option 3 – Take the ‘law of Italy’ to mean the law
which an Italian judge would administer if he were
faced with the matter is the doctrine of double
renvoi.

11. 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 Renvoi.
[1] Single Renvoi / Partial Renvoi
 Single or partial Renvoi applies in a case when rule of law of 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.
 Single Renvoi is called remission in English where legal systems of two countries are involved but
if three countries legal systems are involved then it is called transmission.
 For instance, where a deceased benefactor, who was a French national, was an occupant in England
yet domiciled in Spain leaving moveable property in Spain, the Court may need to consider which
authoritative discussion will apply to manage the property under progression laws.
 Nations such as Spain, Italy, and Luxembourg operates a “Single Renvoi” framework. [This
system refers to another Jurisdiction’s choice of law rules]
 In single renvoi, a judge of a country is faced with conflicting rules of his country and sends the
case to the foreign country but according to the law of that country, the case is referred back to
his country and his country accepts sub reference and applies the law of his country.

12. In re Ross [1930]
Facts - The testatrix( the person who writes the will) was a British
national, who was domiciled in Italy and had written a will leaving the
land in Italy and the movables both in Italy and England. Where will
was valid in England but not in Italy because she had not left half of
her property to her son.
Judgment - Where the Court had applied the law regarding where the
property is situated. The movables in Italy because the testatrix (the
person who writes the will) holds the Italian domicile. As a result, the
Judge had applied the Italian law with respect to the immovable
property situated in Italy. As Italy did not accept the renvoi based issue
was decided in accordance with English law.

13. Forgo Vs. Hart (1904) case
 Facts - A Bavarian national died in France, where he had
lived since the age of 5. Where under the Bavarian law
the collateral relatives were entitled to succeed, but under
the French law the property will be passed to the French
government but not to the family members.
[French PIL referred the matter to Bavarian law but
Bavarian PIL referred it to French law. So that court of
France accepted the remission and applied the succession
law of France]
 Judgment - The French Court held that it would decide
the inquiry by applying Bavarian law however the State
contended that the Bavarian Courts would apply French
law, and the French Courts ought to do otherwise. The
case was ruled for the French state, and the reference here
was to the Bavarian guidelines of contention.

14. [2] Double Renvoi / Total renvoi / Foreign Court Theory
 The solution demands that an English judge, who is required by his own law to
refer to the legal system of a foreign country, must apply whatever the court in
that foreign country would apply if for instance it were hearing the case.
 Unlike Spain, some countries such as England, Australia and France currently
accept renvoi twice. However in this system there can never be more than two
remissions.
 For example, lets 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.
 No Renvoi
 Countries such as Denmark, Greece and the US do not accept renvoi.

15.  Eg., a British national dies domiciled in Belgium, leaving assets in England. A Belgian
judge dealing with this matter would be required by the Belgian private international
law to refer to the English law but then he would find that the case is referred back to
him by the English law.
 Now the Belgian judge might
 Whatever the Belgian judge would do would determine the decision of the English
judge.
 The English judge also has to see whether the doctrine of single renvoi is recognised by
the particular foreign country’s law to which he is referred.
Accept the remission and
apply own internal laws
of Belgium
OR he might reject the
remission and apply the
English law

16.  For instance, the doctrine of single renvoi is rejected in Italy but acceptable in France.
So if the issue in England court is about the validity of a will made by a British subject
domiciled in Italy, the English judge will reason as follows:
 An Italian judge would refer the matter to English law. As being the national law of the
person concerned.
 But the English law remits the question back to Italian law as being the law of his
domicile.
 The Italian law doesn’t accept this remission, as it refuses to accept single renvoi.
Therefore an Italian judge would apply English internal law.
 [the English judge will do the same i.e., apply English law as he has understood the
position that an Italian judge would do if the Italian judge has been faced with the
matter]
 Yet the position in France would be completely opposite result as a court in France
would accept the remission from England and would ultimately apply French internal
laws because French law accepts single renvoi doctrine.

17. Re Annesley Case
 Facts - An English woman was domiciled in France for 58 years at the time
of her death. According to the principles of English law, she was domiciled
in England. Before her death, she made a will, where the will was valid as
per the English law, but it was not valid as per the French law because she
did not leave 2/3rd of her estate to the children. According to the French law
2/3rd of the property goes to their heirs. Where the France Court did not
issue any authorization certificate that she was a French domicile which was
necessary for the acquisition of domicile.
 Judgment - The Court said that it had applied the French law as she was
holding the French domicile at the time of her death. Based on that, the
English Courts refer the matter to the French law as the law of domicile and
the French law also referred the same back to England as single renvoi is
recognized in France. Therefore, the French Court would accept the
Remission and have applied the Internal law.

18. Application of renvoi
 Because the doctrine is considered difficult and its results are sometimes
unpredictable, its application has generally been limited to:
 the validity of wills and intestate succession (the validity of transfers of
real property); and
 retrospective legitimation by the marriage of the natural parents (validity
of divorce decrees).
 However, there are indications in some states that it might also apply to two
issues in family law, namely the capacity to marry and the formal validity of
marriage.

19. Advantages of Renvoi:
 Those who favour renvoi provide many arguments –
1. 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. [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].
2. The second great advantage is said that in sometimes it promotes the reasonable expectation
of the parties. (this happened in Re Annesley case).
3. 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 country’s conflict rules, including
its rules of renvoi, then uniformity with that country results.
4. Fourth advantage is it prevents the forum shopping. (If the English court apply the law of
another country, then there would be no need for forum shopping).

20.  Disadvantages of Renvoi:
1. One of the important criticism that – the application of domestic law of foreign country
could defeat reasonable expectations of person, constitute negation of policy underlying.
2. There are also practical difficulties involved in the application of Renvoi.
3. One arises when the conflict rules of foreign country refers 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.
4. Another difficulty arising where foreign law refers to nationality; easy for unitary states,
but problematic for federal states.
5. Another criticism of Renvoi lays, while English court deciding what the foreign country’s
rules of Renvoi are, especially when the question is unsettled in the foreign country itself.
6. Another, that Renvoi subordinates English choice of law rules to those of a foreign system.
7. Also, one of the practical problems with the doctrine of Renvoi is that generally requires
detailed expert evidence about the State of foreign law.

21. Conclusion
 After we have experienced history, definition, types, and points of interest
of renvoi it is critical to remember that it doesn’t make a difference to all
cases.
 As Abla Mayss commented about it: “renvoi applies to inquiries of
interstate progression and fundamental legitimacy of wills. There is some
power such that it applies to marriage and that it ought to apply to cases
including title to movable and immovable property. It is a process by
which the Court adopts the rules of a foreign jurisdiction for any conflict
of law that arises. Renvoi does not, however, discover a spot in the
fields of contract or tort”.
 And if there is no renvoi the court will apply the Internal law.