Muldoon v Murray

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: JUDGE CATHERINE McGUINNESS
• Judgment Date: 23 May 1996
• Neutral Citation: 1997 WJSC-CC 1754
• Docket Number: Record No. 484/93
• Court: Circuit Court
• Date: 23 May 1996

MULDOON V. MURRAY

IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT, 1981

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIED WOMEN'S STATUS ACT, 1957

BETWEEN:

MICHELLE MULDOON

PLAINTIFF;

-and-

DOMINIC MURRAY

DEFENDANT.

1997 WJSC-CC 1754

Record No. 484/93

THE CIRCUIT COURT

DUBLIN CIRCUIT

COUNTY OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

Words & Phrases:

CEF

Subject Headings:

CONTRACT: breach

Breach of Promise

Citations:

FAMILY LAW ACT 1981

SHATTER ON FAMILY LAW 3ED 71–72

MARRIED WOMENS STATUS ACT 1957 S12

W V W 1981 ILRM 202

FAMILY LAW ACT 1981 S4(1)(a)

FAMILY LAW ACT 1981 S7

FAMILY HOME PROTECTION ACT 1976 S2

FAMILY LAW ACT 1981 S4

JUDGE CATHERINE McGUINNESS

1 These proceedings come before the Court by way of Equity Civil Bill in which the Plaintiff, who was for a period of time engaged to marry the Defendant, makes a number of claims, both in common law and also pursuant to the Family Law Act,1981. A number of basic and relevant facts are not in issue between the parties. The parties met in 1986 when the Plaintiff was 21 and the Defendant 32 years of age. In 1988 following a holiday together in Greece, they became engaged to be married. Their parents were told and an engagement ring was purchased by the Defendant. Not long after the time of the engagement, the Defendant embarked on the purchase of a house at 219 Vernon Avenue, Clontarf, Dublin, 3. The Defendant sold his car to pay the deposit and a mortgage was obtained from the Educational Building Society. The house was placed in the Defendant's sole name and he has always made the actual mortgage repayments.

2 The Plaintiff asserts that at the time of the purchase of the house, her earnings were not sufficient for her to meet half the mortgage repayments and that the parties entered into an agreement whereby the Defendant would make the mortgage repayments and she would contribute from her earnings, both to the purchase of chattels for the home and to its renovation and redecoration. She sets out in her Indorsement of Claim the expenditure which she claims she made, totalling a sum of somewhat over £6,500. While she had some reservations as to the high cost of the house, she believed at all times that this was to be couple's future family home.

3 The Defendant, while accepting that the Plaintiff expended some monies on chattels and decoration, states in evidence that the house was never intended to be a matrimonial home but was a mere investment property and that the purchases made by the Plaintiff, which were of a fairly minor nature, were by way of gifts to him.

4 The parties agree that for a period in early 1992 the Plaintiff moved into the house - she says for a period of some 3–4 months, and the Defendant suggests a period varying from 4–8 weeks. The Plaintiff broke off the engagement in June, 1992 and the parties have had little or no contact with each other since that date. In May, 1993 the Plaintiff through her solicitor sought the return to her of the chattels which she claimed to have purchased, together with compensation for monies expended on the property. The Defendant, through his solicitors, offered to return to her a number of these chattels, but claimed that others were owned by him. He rejected any claim for compensation. The Plaintiff did not accept this offer in whole or in part satisfaction of her claim. She issued her proceedings on 30th September, 1993. On 23rd March, 1994 the Defendant filed his Defence and counterclaim. In his counter- claim, in addition to the matters already referred to, the Defendant claims the return of the engagement ring and a number of gifts of jewellery which he states were given conditionally on the marriage taking place. He also seeks compensation for monies expended on holidays which the parties took together and from which expenditure he claims he derived no benefit.

5 At the hearing before me on 23rd April, 1996 and 30th April, 1996, there was a clash of evidence between the parties on a number of issues, such as whether a date had been booked for the wedding and the length of time the couple had lived together in the house. These issues are not really germane to the matters which fall to be decided by this court and there is therefore no need to make findings of fact in respect of them. Both parties agree the basic facts that they were engaged to be married in 1988 and that the engagement was broken off in 1992. This brings the proceedings within the scope of the Family Law Act,1981.

6 The Plaintiff makes her claim in the main pursuant to the Family Law Act,1981but adds a claim under common law for a declaration that the named chattels are her property and for an order returning them to her together with damages for detinue and conversion.

7 It does not appear to me to be desirable to deal with these claims on two fronts, as it were. Both the claims of the Plaintiff and those of the Defendant in his counterclaim arise within the context of the broken engagement to marry.

8 The Family Law Act,1981was enacted by the Oireachtas in order to remove the old remedy of an action for breach of promise to marry which had a number of undesirable features and at the same time to deal with issues of property and money which might arise between couples whose engagement to marry had been terminated. As has been pointed out by Mr. Alan Shatter in his book Family Law in the Republic of Ireland (3rd Edition), at pp. 71–72:

"The majority of couples become engaged to marry before they go through a marriage ceremony. An exchange of promises to marry at common law constituted a legally binding contract, breach of which rendered...