T v T

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1983
Date01 January 1983
Docket Number[S.C. No. 217 of 1981]
CourtSupreme Court
(S.C.)
T
and
T

Dissolution - Foreign decree of divorce - Jurisdiction of foreign court - Domicil of husband - Parties living in Ireland - Case stated - District Court - Jurisdiction - District Justice functus officio - Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 (20 21 Vict., c. 43), ss.2, 6, 7 - Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 (No. 39), s. 51.

The appellant husband and the respondent wife were married in England in the year 1966. At that time the husband was, and had been since birth, a British citizen and the wife was, and had been since birth, an Irish citizen. The parties lived in England until the year 1974 when they moved to Ireland, with their four children, to a house in the county of Cork. The husband obtained permanent and pensionable employment in that county. The husband left the family home in 1976 and went to live in a flat in the city of Cork. Subsequently the wife and children left the family home and went to live elsewhere in Ireland, whereupon the husband returned to the family home. In February, 1977, the husband filed in England a petition for a divorce a vinculo and he obtained an order absolute on the 23rd August, 1978. The husband then applied to the District Court for an order varying the terms of a certain maintenance order which directed the husband to pay periodically certain sums to the wife. The District Justice made the order sought by the husband but did so without making a finding as to the domicil of the husband at the time of the divorce. At the request of the wife, the District Justice stated and signed a Case pursuant to s. 2 of the Act of 1857 (as amended) seeking the opinion of the High Court on a point of law being whether the District Justice had acted correctly in granting the husband's application. The High Court judge remitted the matter to the District Justice and requested him to decide the domicil of the husband, whereupon, having heard further evidence, the District Justice replied stating that he had decided that the husband had been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • C.M. v T.M. (No. 2)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1991
    ...In re Sillar; Hurley v. WimbushIR [1956] I.R. 344. The State (Clarke) v. RocheIRDLRM [1986] I.R. 619; [1987] I.L.R.M. 309. T. v. T.IRDLRM [1983] I.R. 29; [1982] I.L.R.M. 217. Domicile - Husband and wife - Marriage - Dissolution - Husband obtained foreign decree - English domicile of origin ......
  • PK v TK
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 5 March 2002
    ...and intrinsically temporary factor. W. v. W. [1993] 2 I.R. 476; McC. v. McC. (Unreported, Supreme Court, 28th July, 1995); T. v. T.[1983] I.R. 29 followed. Obiter dictum: That there might well be cases where a person who took steps in relation to a decree of divorce granted by a foreign jur......
  • M.H. v G.H.
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 26 February 2015
    ...intervention of the purported decree of dissolution.’ 11 The matter was further considered by the Supreme Court in the case of T. v. T. [1983] I.R. 29. That case was originally a case stated by the District Court to the High Court and was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court. Henchy J. ......
  • MEC v JAC (Divorce: Recognition)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 9 March 2001
    ...1 I.L.R.M. 107. People (Attorney General) v. Ballins [1964] Ir. Jur. Rep. 14. Revenue Commissioners v. Shaw [1982] I.L.R.M. 433. T. v. T. [1983] I.R. 29; [1982] I.L.R.M. 217. Tuohy v. Courtney [1994] 3 I.R. 1; [1994] 2 I.L.R.M. 503. Vone Securities v. Cooke [1979] I.R. 59. W. v. W. [1993] 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Around The World In 80 Days: From The Altar To The Courtroom
    • Ireland
    • Cork Online Law Review No. 5-2006, January 2006
    • 1 January 2006
    ...proving domicile of choice, for example a long term job, property, the purchase of grave plot, banking in the currency of the country. 14[1983] IR 29. 15[1988] ILRM 457. 16[2000] 1 ILRM 107. 17Power C., Case and Comment, [2001] 3 IJFL Here, the petitioner and respondent were wed in Germany ......

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