Cohane v Cohane

Judgment Date18 July 1968
Date18 July 1968
Docket Number[1965. No. 343 P.]
CourtSupreme Court

Discretion of the Court -Husband and wife - Separation agreement -Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962, O. 29, r. 3.

The plaintiff had married her husband, the defendant, in the United States of America. In the year 1957 the parties had separated and had then executed a separation agreement which provided that it should be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. Subsequently the plaintiff obtained in Mexico a decree of divorce which approved and incorporated the agreement. The defendant, who had re-married and was living in Ireland, was in breach of the agreement because he had failed to pay certain sums of money to the plaintiff for her maintenance. The plaintiff, who resided in Spain, brought an action in Ireland in which she claimed payment of the moneys which the defendant had failed to pay on foot of the agreement. The defendant applied to the High Court, by motion on notice, for an order directing the plaintiff to furnish security for the defendant's costs of the action on the grounds that the plaintiff resided outside the jurisdiction of the Court and that the defendant had filed a satisfactory affidavit showing that he had a defence on the merits, which proofs were required by the Rules of Court. Held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., Haugh, Walsh, Budd and FitzGerald JJ.), in allowing the appeal, 1, that the defendant would normally have been entitled prima facie to the order sought by him as he had satisfied the requirements of the Rules of Court, and that a defence "on the merits" could include an objection to the enforcement of the agreement which was based upon a point of law of some...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Quinn Insurance Ltd (Under Administration) v PricewaterhouseCoopers (A Firm)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 22 March 2021
    ...that the Court must be careful not to fix a sum which would shut out the plaintiff from the exercise of such rights as he may have. In Cohane v. Cohane [1968] I.R. 176, 182, Budd J. observed that if this was a:- “proper matter to take into consideration in fixing security, it seems not ill......
  • Jack O'Toole Ltd v MacEoin Kelly Associates
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1987
    ...180; (1957) 97 I.L.T.R. 12. Personal Service Laundry Ltd. v. National Bank Ltd. [1964] I.R. 49; (1960) 99 I.L.T.R. 175. Cohane v. Cohane [1968] I.R. 176. Collins v. Doyle [1982] I.L.R.M. 495. Parkinson & Co. v. Triplan Ltd. [1973] Q.B. 609; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 632; [1973] 2 All E.R. 273. S.E.E.......
  • E. L. v S. K
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 18 February 2011
    ...unless he establishes by 'a satisfactory affidavit' that he has 'a defence upon the merits'. As Budd J. makes clear in Cohane v Cohane [1968] IR 176, 181, while this is a mandatory requirement, the rule does not provide that if a satisfactory affidavit of the merits is filed, security must ......
  • Salih v The General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 13 November 1987
    ...justifying the exercise of the court's discretion in the plaintiff's favour. Heaney v. MaloccaIR [1958] I.R. 11; Cohane v. CohaneIR [1968] I.R. 176 and Collins v. DoyleDLRM [1982] ILRM 495 considered. 3. That although the plaintiff's current financial problems could well be attributable to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT