[Type the company name]
LJU4804 October
November
PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE
ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2024 -
DUE 18 October
2024
[Type the document subtitle]
[Pick the date]
, Book
Private International Law
LJU4804 October November PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2024 - DUE 18 October 2024; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted
solutions and explanations.. Ensure your success with us..
QUESTION 1 Instructions: Read the set of facts below and answer the
questions that follow. LJU4804 OCT NOV 2024 3 John and Mary Smith got
married in Hawaii in December 1983. At that time, they were British citizens
and Mary was domiciled in London, while John was working in New York on a
two-year fixed term contract with the possibility of further renewal. However,
just before the marriage, John was offered a very senior permanent position
with a South African retail brand and he had entered into negotiations with the
company at that stage. They relocated to Johannesburg, South Africa shortly
after getting married and established a domicile there. Two children were born
from the marriage and Mary stayed at home to look after them full-time. In
2022, Mary filed for divorce in the South Gauteng High Court. She also
applied for a redistribution of assets. 1.1 Which legal system applies to the
formal validity of John and Mary’s marriage in terms of the South African rules
of private international law? (2) 1.2 How would the South African court
determine where John was domiciled at the time of entering into the
marriage? Note: The court must determine where he was domiciled in
December 1983. (3) 1.3 Mary’s legal counsel would like to argue that the
proprietary consequences of the parties’ marriage are governed by South
African law as the intended matrimonial domicile when the parties got married.
Advise her legal team on their prospects of success considering relevant case
law. Your answer must include a properly referenced, full case discussion of
Sadiku v Sadiku 30498/06 (unreported) as well as the relevant points in this
regard from the prescribed article by Neels and Wethmar-Lemmer 2008 TSAR
587 – 596. (15) 1.4 Assume for purposes of this question that John was found
to be domiciled in England at the time of entering into the marriage. Would
Mary be successful in obtaining a redistribution order in terms of s 7(3) of the
Divorce Act 70 of 1979? Discuss the different views with reference to case law
in this regard. (10) 1.5 Mary executed a will in Hawaii in which she appointed
John as her sole heir. At the time of execution of the will, she was domiciled in
England and a British citizen. She retained her British citizenship throughout
her life. After her divorce from John was finalised, Mary executed a second
will in France that expressly revoked her first will and appointed her two
LJU4804 October
November
PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE
ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2024 -
DUE 18 October
2024
[Type the document subtitle]
[Pick the date]
, Book
Private International Law
LJU4804 October November PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2024 - DUE 18 October 2024; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted
solutions and explanations.. Ensure your success with us..
QUESTION 1 Instructions: Read the set of facts below and answer the
questions that follow. LJU4804 OCT NOV 2024 3 John and Mary Smith got
married in Hawaii in December 1983. At that time, they were British citizens
and Mary was domiciled in London, while John was working in New York on a
two-year fixed term contract with the possibility of further renewal. However,
just before the marriage, John was offered a very senior permanent position
with a South African retail brand and he had entered into negotiations with the
company at that stage. They relocated to Johannesburg, South Africa shortly
after getting married and established a domicile there. Two children were born
from the marriage and Mary stayed at home to look after them full-time. In
2022, Mary filed for divorce in the South Gauteng High Court. She also
applied for a redistribution of assets. 1.1 Which legal system applies to the
formal validity of John and Mary’s marriage in terms of the South African rules
of private international law? (2) 1.2 How would the South African court
determine where John was domiciled at the time of entering into the
marriage? Note: The court must determine where he was domiciled in
December 1983. (3) 1.3 Mary’s legal counsel would like to argue that the
proprietary consequences of the parties’ marriage are governed by South
African law as the intended matrimonial domicile when the parties got married.
Advise her legal team on their prospects of success considering relevant case
law. Your answer must include a properly referenced, full case discussion of
Sadiku v Sadiku 30498/06 (unreported) as well as the relevant points in this
regard from the prescribed article by Neels and Wethmar-Lemmer 2008 TSAR
587 – 596. (15) 1.4 Assume for purposes of this question that John was found
to be domiciled in England at the time of entering into the marriage. Would
Mary be successful in obtaining a redistribution order in terms of s 7(3) of the
Divorce Act 70 of 1979? Discuss the different views with reference to case law
in this regard. (10) 1.5 Mary executed a will in Hawaii in which she appointed
John as her sole heir. At the time of execution of the will, she was domiciled in
England and a British citizen. She retained her British citizenship throughout
her life. After her divorce from John was finalised, Mary executed a second
will in France that expressly revoked her first will and appointed her two
