L.B. v H.B.

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1980
• Date: 01 January 1980
• Court: High Court

(H.C.)

L.B

and

H.B

Foreign divorce - Decree obtained by collusion - Whether decree invalid - Whether parties domiciled in State where decree was obtained - Whether court should recognise decree - Whether dwelling shared by parties to be regarded as a family home - Whether wife entitled to maintenance from husband - Family Home Protection Act, 1976, (No. 27), s. 2.

The parties married in 1947, the wife being a British citizen and the husband a citizen of the United States of America. They lived for some years in France. By 1957 both parties decided to obtain a divorce, and a petition was obtained from the French courts in 1958. In July, 1957, the parties entered into a property settlement in which the husband agreed to pay the wife a certain sum of alimony and to provide her with a house for her life. Evidence was given that such a settlement, made before the final divorce decree, was not valid under French law in 1957. To obtain a divorce decree, the parties colluded in giving evidence in relation to their conduct during the marriage which would ground the petition. Evidence was also given that had the French courts known of such collusion the decree would not have been granted, but that once granted it would not now be set aside by a French court. At the time of the decree, the husband had bought a substantial residence in France and was engaged in social and business interests in that country. The parties continued to live in the same house, but not as husband and wife. After the decree, the husband bought a residence in the West of Ireland, which the wife shared from the early 1960's. The wife sought relief from the High Court in the form of maintenance from the husband, arguing that the Irish courts should not recognise the 1957 decree on the alternative grounds that it was obtained in collusion and that at the time it was made the husband was domiciled in France. Held by Barrington J. in granting the relief sought: (1) while there was a presumption that the husband's domicile of origin was not to be regarded as abandoned except on clear evidence, there was evidence that in 1957 he had formed an intention to settle permanently in France, and this implied, on the balance of probability, that he intended to abandon his American domicile...