External public policy, the incidental question properly so-called and the recognition of foreign divorce orders

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Author: Neels, J.L.
• Date: 16 August 2019
• Published date: 16 August 2019
• Citation: 2010 TSAR 671
• Pages: 671-688

[ISSN 0257 – 7747] TSAR 2010 . 4

671

External public policy, the incidental question

properly so-called and the recognition of

foreign divorce orders*

JAN L NEELS**

“Das [I nternationale Privatrecht] e nthält keine allgemeine Vorschr ift über die Beantwor tung von

Vorfragen. Das ist au ch gut so …” – Kurt Siehr.1

1 Introduction

In th is article, the case of Phelan v Phelan,2 a decision of the Cape high court3 in

South Africa, is employed as point of reference to illustrate the inuence public

policy could have on the resolution of the incidental question properly so-calle d

where it e ntails the recognit ion or non-recognition of a foreign divorce order. The

main question was the inherent va lidity of a marriage concluded in Australia. The

incidental q uestion involved the recog nition or non-recognition of a divorce order

given by a cou rt in the Dominica n Republic in respect of the previous marriage of

one of the parties to the Aust ralian marriage.4

2 The incidental question in pr ivate international law

According to Sykes and Pryles, “[t]he inc idental question … arises in a situat ion

where the ultimate or  nal question requiring solution i nvolves a con ictual ref-

erence to the law of a par ticular country but the decision of that nal quest ion is

dependent upon a primary or preliminary question which has to be determined”.5

The ultimate or nal question is usually called the main question, while the pri-

mary question and preliminar y quest ion are synonymous with the incidental

question.

* This article is partially ba sed on papers read at the University of Brit ish Columbia on 17 Jan 2008

and at t he University of Joh annesburg on 17 Apr 2008 and 8 Sep 2009. The article was pr eviously

published in Bo ele-Woelki, Einh orn, Gi rsberger and Syme onides (eds) Convergence and Diver-

gence in Priv ate International L aw – Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr (2010) 355-379 and is reproduced

here with the pe rmission of Eleven Intern ational Publishing i n Rotterdam.

** Professor of Privat e International Law, Universit y of Johannesburg.

1 Siehr Das Internationale P rivatrecht der Sch weiz (2002) 581.

2 2007 1 SA 483 (C).

3 today the Western Cape high cou rt. See s 1 of the Renami ng of High Courts Act 30 of 2008.

4 See par 7 below. The main questio n therefore concerned a choice of law issue and the incidental

question involved a matter of recogn ition. Not only in common-law countrie s but also in many civil-

law systems similar scena rios are dealt w ith as incident al questions, ir respective of t he fact that in

some of the latter systems a (more or less strict) division exists between privat e international law and

internat ional civil procedural law (for instanc e, the division in German law between Inte rnationales

Privatrecht a nd Internat ionales Ziv ilverfahrensrecht). See, for instance, Fawcett, Carruthers and

North Che shire, North and Fawc ett Private International La w (2008) 51; Kahn “Conict of laws”

in Corbett, Hofmey r and Kahn The Law of Succession in South Afric a (2001) 579 608-609; Krophol-

ler Internat ionales Privatre cht (2006) 228; Siehr (n 1) 581; and Strik werda Inleiding tot h et Neder-

landse Intern ationaal Privaat recht (2008) 48.

5 Sykes and Pryles Australian P rivate Internation al Law (1991) 228.

2010 TSAR 671

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

TSAR 2010 . 4 [ISSN 0257 – 7747]

672 NEELS

A straight-forward example6 of an incidental question from the pe rspective of

South African p rivate intern ational law could be the following. Ms X, who wa s

domiciled in countr y A at the time of her death, left movable property i n South

Africa. She died intestate or perhap s did not provide for the goods in her will. Ac-

cording to the applicable Roman-Dutch conicts rule in this regard, the law of the

country of X’s domicile at death determines who the inte state heirs of the movables

will be.7 The law of A will therefore apply to the main quest ion of t he intestate

succession to t he movables. Assume that, i n terms of the law of A , only X’s intra-

marital children must inher it. The incidental question then entails the determin ation

of who the intra-marit al children are.

The incidental question8 (in casu: who are the intr a-marital child ren?) may be

governed by any one of four legal systems:9 (a) the int ernal lex fori (in casu internal

South African law); (b) the legal system refer red to by the private international law

of the forum (South African conict s law);10 (c) the intern al lex causa e (the legal

system applicable to the mai n question) (in casu the internal law of A); or (d) the

legal system referre d to by the private intern ational law of the lex causae (the con-

icts law of A).

3 Excursus: Legitimacy in Sou th Afr ican private international law

Which legal system would apply in respect of legiti macy if South Af rican private

international law were to be employed? Roman-Dutch private inter national law re-

ferred th is issue to the law of domicile of the father at the time of birth.11 The r ule

may in the future be found to be unconst itutional, as being in con ict with the

equality pr inciple in section 9 of t he Constitution of the Re public of South Africa,

6 Crawford and Carruther s International Priva te Law in Scotland (2006) 59: “This dee per mystery of

the conict of laws is mo st readily understo od if set in narrative for m.”

7 See Forsy th Private International Law. The Modern Roma n-Dutch Law including the Jurisdicti on of

the High Courts (2003) 366-368; Kah n (n 4) 614-615; Neels “Private i nternational law of succe ssion

in Sout h Africa” 2005 Yearbook of Private International Law 183 186; and Schoeman a nd Roodt

“South Af rica” in Verschra egen (ed) Internat ional Encyclopaed ia of Laws – Private Intern ational

Law (2007) par 220.

8 namely the incidental ques tion properly so-cal led. See par 5 on the incid ental question not prop erly

so-called.

9 See Gotlieb “The incident al question revisited – theory and pra ctice in the con ict of laws”

1977 ICLQ 734 769 (repr inted in Simmonds (ed) Con tempora ry Problems in the Con ict o f

Laws. Essays in Hon our of John Humphrey Carlile Morr is (1978) 34). Ther e may be mo re legal

systems to choose f rom if the doctrine of renvoi is a pplied (Gotlieb). In South Africa , renvoi

cannot be applied (a) in the contex t of the formal val idity of wills (s 3bis of the Wills Ac t 7 of

1953); an d (b) w here d omicile is a connec ting f actor (s 4 of the Domicile Act 3 of 199 2). The

exclusions do not per tain to the lex loci celebrationis, wh ich governed the main quest ion in the

Phelan case (n 2). For a critical discussion of the parti al exclusion of renvoi, se e Neels “Die

gedeeltelike uitslu iting van renvoi in rese nte wet gewing ” 1992 TSAR 739. Hav ing the in cidental

question governed by a syst em other than the intern al lex causae d oes not en tail the applicat ion

of renvoi as it is not the main qu estion bu t a subsid iary qu estion t hat is so referre d. See Go tlieb

750 and Neels “Die oneg te insidentele vraag in ’n int ernasionaal-erf regtelike geskil” 1993 TSAR

760 765.

10 See par 3.

11 Kahn “Jur isdiction and conict of laws in the Sout h African law of husband and wife” i n Hahlo The

South Africa n Law of Husband and Wife (1975) 529 618 with reference to the old authorit ies.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd