Divorce cases may soon pierce the corporate veil

Irish courts have, to date, tiptoed around piercing the corporate veil in separation and divorce cases

Two recent family law cases have highlighted the issue of whether a company will be able to maintain its separate legal identity when its major shareholder is involved in divorce litigation.

It is a long established core principle of company law that a company is a distinct legal entity from its shareholders, even a majority shareholder who has total control over the company.

Notwithstanding this, the family courts in England have until recently routinely made orders directing a company to transfer its assets to the spouse of a shareholder.

The Irish courts have, to date, stopped short of going as far as this.

However, Irish courts do regularly make orders directing a company shareholder to give company data and documents, information that is confidential to the company, to their spouse.

This is to allow the spouse of the shareholder to value the shareholder’s stake in the company in the course of divorce litigation.

A recent English case has made clear when a company might have its assets transferred to the spouse of a shareholder.

The case in question is the case of Prest versus Petrodel. The husband, Michael Prest, was the founder and sole shareholder in Petrodel Resources. In his divorce case, he claimed that Petrodel’s assets did not belong to him and that he was £48 million in debt. Initially the court ordered the company to transfer properties worth £17.5 million to the wife. The company appealed this decision and the UK’s Supreme Court.

The court decided that, in general, orders could not be made awarding company assets to a shareholder’s spouse.

However, the court then went on to make just such an award of company assets to the wife in this case because it found that the husband was the beneficial owner of the assets.

He had, for example, provided the funds to buy them. He also took funds from the company whenever he wished without company authority.

The court therefore rubber-stamped the transfer of assets from a company to a spouse, albeit with limitations.

Legal tiptoe

Irish courts have, to date, tiptoed around piercing the corporate veil in separation and divorce cases.

Instead of making orders against a company, they have made orders against the shareholding spouse to either transfer some of his or her shares in the company to their spouse or to give their spouse a lump sum, such that the only way they will be able to pay the lump sum is to pull money out of the company.

Whichever of these methods of transferring assets to a spouse is used the results are often unsatisfactory and crude.

The former may leave the dependent spouse with an illiquid minority shareholding and the latter is very tax inefficient.

A case in Ireland in June of this year also highlighted the issue of the separate legal status of a company, albeit on a narrower issue.

The case of Q versus Q involved an application by a wife to compel a husband to give certain company information to her. The husband argued that he was not in a position to provide the information pertaining as the company was a separate legal entity.

He also argued that the information being sought was not within his possession or power to give.

Quasi-inquisitorial role

Mr Justice Keane in the High Court made the point that a court in a family law case has a quasi-inquisitorial role.

He found that the husband had been able to receive all and any information he needed and he could not therefore argue that the documents his wife was seeking were beyond his possession or power to give.

The case demonstrates that a company is not immune from involvement in family law cases in this country just because it is a separate legal entity.

One feels it is only a matter of time before the issues that arose in Prest versus Petrodel are before the Irish courts.

If the Irish courts do follow Prest, the impact on company law here would be dramatic in that company assets might become fair game for the spouses of divorcing shareholders.

Tackling the problem

A pre-emptive solution should be found now to avoid such problems arising in the future.

One option would be to introduce legislation along the lines of the Australian model which enables a court to make a whole range of orders concerning a third party, including orders against a company to transfer assets from the company to a spouse of a shareholder.

Indeed, perhaps such legislation should be introduced here sooner rather than later so as to provide certainty for couples and companies alike and to make it easier for the courts to make proper provision for spouses on divorce.

Justin Spain is a family law solicitor

By Justin Spain – Irish Times | Mon, Oct 20, 2014 | Link to Irish Times Article

Supreme Court: Divorce should not mean an automatic redistribution of wealth.

The Supreme Court handed down a Judgment of great significance on 19th October. The Judgment was given by the Chief Justice in the case of G v G and addresses the important question of what constitutes proper provision on the granting of a divorce in circumstances where a Separation Agreement has previously been entered into by the parties.

Until this case the law was unclear as regards the weight that a Deed of Separation should have in the context of providing proper provision on divorce at a later date. Parties were using the forum provided by a divorce application to seek a “second bit of the cherry” and there have been conflicted Judgments from the High Court on the issue of how much a weight a previous Deed of Separation should carry. The clarity provided by the Supreme Court in this case on the issue is therefore to be welcomed.

In the case of G v G the parties were married in 1977 and separated in 1995. A Deed of Separation was entered into by the parties in 1996, pursuant to which the husband agreed to pay the wife maintenance of £100 per week for two years, decreasing to £50 per week thereafter. He also agreed to provide a house for her, pay her VHI and gave an additional lump sum of £70,000. The Deed contained a “full and final settlement” clause which stated that the Agreement constituted a full and final settlement of all present and future financial claims by either party including a divorce at a later date.

After the Deed of Separation was entered into the husband became wealthy. Having inherited property, sold it and bought other lands which he later sold for €19 million. The wife still lived in the house provided for her at the time of separation. She had spent her lump sum of £70,000 and did not invest it in any wealth producing activity. The wife then instituted divorce proceedings, primarily with a view to improving her financial situation.

The divorce came before the High Court in May 2009 by which time the husband’s assets were worth €21 million. The High Court made the following Orders in favour of the wife:

  • €600,000 for the purchase of an annuity.
  • €300,000 for the purchase of a pension.
  • Maintenance of €54,000 per annum increasing annually in line with inflation.
  • €1,000,000 for the purchase of a second house for the wife.
  • A further lump sum of €600,000.

The husband appealed the Order to the Supreme Court on the basis, inter alia, that the amounts awarded to the wife by the High Court were excessive having regard to the law applicable to the making of proper provision for her. The husband argued that the High Court had failed to give any real weight to the parties’ prior Deed of Separation and had embarked upon a redistribution of wealth. He further argued that the Court should only make further provision if there is some material change in a party’s personal non-financial circumstances or if there was some deficiency in the initial provision.

The Supreme Court laid down some general principles to be applied where there is a prior Deed of Separation, including the following:

  • A Deed of Separation should be given significant weight by a Court when determining what is proper provision on divorce, particularly if it contains a “full and final settlement” clause.
  • If the circumstances of the spouses have changed significantly since separation the Court is required to make proper provision but there is no requirement on the Court to redistribute wealth between the parties. Such changed circumstances may include, for example, changed needs of a spouse due to illness or the bursting of a property bubble which has altered the value of assets so as to render an earlier provision unjust.
  • If a spouse acquires wealth after a separation that is unconnected to any joint project during their married life, there is no automatic right of the other spouse to further monies or assets.
  • The greater the length of time that has passed since separation, the less likely a Court will be to alter arrangements entered into at separation.
  • Assets which are inherited by one spouse will not be treated as assets of the marriage.
  • A spouse should not be compensated for their own incompetence or indiscretions to the detriment of the other party.

In applying the above principles to the present case the Supreme Court made a number of findings. The Court found that the initial level of maintenance was too low and also that the Deed of Separation did not provide a sufficient level of security into the future.

However, the Court found that the overall level of financial provision made by the High Court for the wife was excessive. In particular the Court allowed the Appeal of the husband in certain respects and held the following:

  • The husband should not have to pay €1,000,000 for the purchase of a second house for the wife.
  • The lump sum of €600,000 awarded to the wife should not have to be paid.
  • The Court found that where one party fails to maximise resources acquired under a Deed of Separation this in itself is not a basis for further provision to be made. In this case the wife did not maximise her capital resources, however her subsequent ill health and the low level of initial maintenance under the Deed of Separation meant that the High Court was entitled to make further provision for her.
  • Where there is a great improvement in one party’s finances following a “full and final” settlement the concept of “proper provision” should not be dominated by that change. However, if there is a new or different need then that may be met from the resources that now exist. The Court stated that the general standard of living of a spouse should be commensurate with that enjoyed when the marriage ended. Importantly, the Court stated that the standard of living of a spouse, when the other party has achieved further wealth, is not entitled to be elevated on that basis.

In the present case the Court found that the husband had acquired his wealth after separation and as such his wealth should not be relevant to making proper provision for his wife except if there is a requirement for a special consideration such as ill health. The Court therefore found that the wife’s increased maintenance and pension met her needs.

This case provides some much needed clarity on the weight to be given to a Deed of Separation when parties come to divorce at a later date. In the last number of years the practice of using divorce as a forum to have a “second bit of the cherry” appears to have been very significantly reduced by this Judgment.

Legal Opinion: Cohabitation legislation urgently needs information campaign

From experience I know there are many couples out there blissfully unaware of the fact they may have rights and obligations against each other

When the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 became law in January 2011 the civil partnership element received much media coverage and was broadly welcomed. However, the Act also introduced an important safety net for cohabitants and this part of the Act has come into force somewhat under the radar despite the fact it is this part that will potentially apply to a far greater number of couples than those in civil partnerships.

It remains the case in this country that the vast majority of families consist of married couples. However, the number of cohabiting couples is rising fast – the 2011 Census showed there were 143,000 in Ireland, an 18 per cent increase on the 2006 Census. This makes cohabiting couples the fastest growing family unit in Ireland.

Historically, cohabitants have had little or no rights in the event the relationship ended or one of them died. This is in stark contrast to married couples, who have enjoyed significant protection under the succession and matrimonial legislation.

To illustrate this point, take the example of a woman who has lived with her partner for 20 years but is not married to him. She gave up her job to have a family with him and sacrificed her career prospects to raise their children. Her partner is the sole earner, owns the house and is the only one of them with a pension. He meets someone else and ends the relationship.

Until recently she would only have been entitled to seek maintenance for the children – she would not have been entitled to maintenance for herself or to claim against any of her partner’s pension or their home (unless she had actually put money into it).

Vulnerable financial position

This would have potentially left her in an extremely vulnerable financial position. Similarly, if her partner died she had no automatic rights to any of his estate. This example illustrates the unfairness of the law as it applied to married couples as opposed to couples who lived together as a family unit but were not married.

The 2010 Act changed this by providing a redress scheme which would allow the woman in this example to apply to Court for financial relief, including orders for maintenance for herself, sale of property and pension provision. She would be able to claim against his estate if he had died.

To qualify as a cohabitant under the Act a couple must be living together in an intimate and committed relationship for five years, or two years if they have children together. A cohabitant must also satisfy a court he or she has been left in a financially vulnerable position as a result of the relationship breakdown due to their financial dependence on their partner. If these tests are met then the Court can make a range of orders in their favour.

This is a very progressive piece of legislation. For example, England has not introduced such provisions for cohabitants and so while Ireland has been behind the curve historically compared to England when it came to matrimonial legislation, in this respect at least Ireland is now leading the way.

However, there are some shortcomings. Important factors that need to be satisfied to qualify as a cohabitant are not defined in the Act, for example the phrases “intimate and committed relationship“ and “financial dependence”.

Within two years

The Act states a claim must be brought within two years of the end of the relationship but how do you define when a relationship has ended – one party may think it is going fine whilst the other party may feel it ended some time ago.

Furthermore, since there are no automatic rights the only avenue open to a cohabitant to get financial relief is to go to court. This can be expensive and, with the availability of legal aid so limited due to delays and means testing, many might be put off going to court because of the cost and also because the lack of cases so far means outcomes are uncertain.

The Act can also throw up some claims for relief that one might consider on the face of them to be unjust. Undoubtedly the Act is very welcome for the woman in the example above. However, take a different example. A divorced man owns his own house, mortgage free, and has a good income. He meets a woman and after a time she moves in with him, gives up her job with his consent and becomes financially dependent on him.

After seven years together she starts to drink heavily and become verbally abusive. Some time later he has had enough and asks her to leave. She then brings a claim under the Act for the sale of his house, maintenance and pension provision. No doubt the man in this example would be horrified to find out she may be entitled to bring such a claim under the Act.

From experience I know there are many couples out there who are blissfully unaware of the fact they may have rights and obligations against each other. Therefore whilst overall, this is a very welcome and progressive piece of legislation, the Act is crying out for an information campaign funded by Government to make cohabiting couples fully aware of the provisions contained in it.

Justin Spain is a Dublin-based solicitor specialising in family law

By Justin Spain – Irish Times | Mon, Jul 08, 2013 | Link to Irish Times Article

Genetic mother wins surrogacy case

The genetic mother of twins born to a surrogate mother has won a landmark case at the High Court to be declared the legal mother of the twins.

Mr Justice Henry Abbott ruled that the genetic mother was the legal mother and was entitled to have a declaration from the court stating that.

He also said the twins were entitled to have the genetic mother named as their mother on their birth certificates.

The State had refused to allow the genetic mother to be listed as the mother on the twins’ birth certificates.

The surrogate mother was the sister of the genetic mother, and had not objected to the couple’s application.

Mr Justice Abbott said the input of the birth mother was to be respected and treated with “care and prudence”. But the old maxim mater semper certa est, motherhood is always certain, which the State argued meant the birth mother was always the legal mother, did not survive the enactment of the Constitution, “as it applies to the situation of in-vitro fertilisation”.

“To achieve fairness and constitutional and natural justice for both the paternal and maternal genetic parents, the feasible inquiry in relation to maternity ought to be made on a genetic basis and on being proven, the genetic mother should be registered as the mother,” the Judge said.

He also ruled that the word “mother” in Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution had a meaning “specific to the article itself”. This was related to the existence of the unborn only when the foetus was in the womb and not otherwise, he said.

The state had argued the Article, often referred to as the right-to-life amendment, had defined motherhood as the birth mother only.

Mr Justice Abbott also noted that in Ireland positive legislation on surrogacy was “totally absent” and so the contract entered into by the couple and the surrogate mother was “not illegal”. But he said its performance in the Irish legislative context “would not be enforceable by any court”.

Responding to the ruling, Solicitor Marion Campbell, on behalf of the family, said they were delighted with the outcome.

“It has been a very long, hard and emotional time for them and they would like to express their thanks for the support shown to them by their family, friends and legal representatives,” she said.

“It is to be hoped now that much needed legislation in relation to this whole difficult area of surrogacy will be brought in and that children born by way of surrogacy arrangements will have their rights enshrined in such legislation.

By Fiona Gartland – Irish Times | Tue, Mar 05, 2013 | Link to Irish Times Article

Ruling may affect financial entitlements of ex-spouses

THE HIGH Court has delivered a judgment that is likely to change the way in which separated and divorced spouses are provided for following the death of either party.

A judgment delivered recently by Mr Justice Michael Peart means it will no longer be routine for a court to issue a “blocking order” preventing an application to be made for financial provision out of the estate of the deceased spouse.

Under the Succession Act, a spouse has an automatic entitlement to a minimum fixed percentage of the estate of the other spouse, the percentage depending on whether the spouse died testate or intestate and whether or not there are children. Following a divorce or a judicial separation, the spouse no longer has an automatic right to such a percentage.

In many judicial separation and divorce cases, some provision is made for continuing maintenance of a dependent spouse, either through the payment of a lump sum when the divorce or separation is finalised, through the setting-up of a life insurance scheme to provide for continuing maintenance, or through a pension adjustment order which provides for a portion of the earner’s pension to be paid to the dependent spouse. But this only happens where the resources exist for such arrangements to be made.

Though the Divorce Act provides for an application to be made for provision out of the estate, the practice has grown up that in almost all divorce and judicial separation cases the court makes a “blocking order” under section 18 (10) of the Act, which has the effect that neither spouse can make an application for provision out of the estate of their former spouse. This means that where such a blocking order is made, a spouse receiving maintenance no longer receives it unless some alternative guarantee of payment has been put in place.

The case that came before the High Court recently involved a couple who were legally separated and the man later sought a divorce in the Circuit Court. The court made the divorce decree, giving the wife a lump sum of €50,000 and €200 a week in maintenance. The Circuit Court judge also made a blocking order that neither could apply for provision out of the estate of the other. The couple’s children were grown up.

The husband runs a small and successful business. The court was told the wife previously worked in the business and later worked as a carer with the Health Service Executive, but her hours had been cut back and her financial position had therefore deteriorated. She was very concerned about her security in the event of her husband’s death and sought some modification of the blocking order so that she could make a claim against her husband’s estate if he died.

“It is reasonable for the wife to have fears around what is to happen to her in the event of the applicant’s death, whenever that should occur,” Mr Justice Peart said. If the husband’s employment carried some sort of pension plan, a Pension Adjustment Order could be made, but there was none.

He ordered the husband to give a month’s notice to the wife of any intention to retire, sell or otherwise dispose of his business, so that she could take legal advice about how to secure maintenance.

Turning to the issue of the blocking order, he said: “It seems appropriate that the court should not make a blocking order under section 18 (10) of the Act of 1996 unless the court can be satisfied that proper provision has been made for her maintenance after her husband’s death.”

This would allow her to make an application for provision out of his estate, if her circumstances justified it. It would be a matter for the judge hearing the application to consider the case history, he said.

Details of the judgment, delivered on August 13th, have only just emerged because the case was heard in camera.

Decisions of the High Court are binding on the Circuit and District courts, so it is likely that this judgment will be taken into account in future divorce and judicial separation cases, where no provision has been made for the protection of maintenance payments following a spouse’s death.

By Carol Coulter – Irish Times |Mon, Aug 27, 2012 | Link to Irish Times Article

How to take the financial pain out of separation

Twelve tips from a family law solicitor.

By John Hearne

Celebrities do messy divorce like no one else. When his Spanish-born wife Mati initiated divorce proceedings against celebrity chef Marco Pierre White, the whole thing quickly degenerated into an unseemly mess.

She texted her entire contact list with the news that he had left her for someone else. The family instantly split in two; his two sons went to live with him, their daughter stayed with her.

The couple spent around £1.25m each on legal costs. Mati had to sell her engagement ring to help pay costs. In the end, they got back together.

Most of us won’t have a £50m restaurant empire up for grabs, but that doesn’t mean that divorces won’t get messy. Far from it. Family law solicitor Justin Spain says that if you are facing into separation or divorce, prepare yourself for one of the most stressful periods of your life.

“Family law is not like normal litigation where someone wins and someone loses.” He says. “With family law, it’s lose/lose. The best you can come up with is a kind of a workable solution.”

In most countries, separating couples go straight to divorce. In Ireland, because separating partners must have lived apart for four years before divorce proceedings can begin, the process begins with separation.

Separating partners can agree to a deed of separation, but if agreement can’t be found, one party issues legal proceedings in court. This is when things can get messy.

“In a lot of cases,” says Spain, “there’s so much animosity between the parties that it’s just not possible to agree to a deed of separation.”

If the situation has degenerated to this level, Spain advises a two-pronged approach.

“The family mediation service run by the Government is a good service and it’s free.”

The big downside of litigation is of course the cost.

“I have had cases where you have an average middle-class family and the only asset is the family home, and there may not be much equity in it. Three or four days are spent in court fighting about it and the legal fees could be over 20 grand each.”

The lesson, says Spain, is don’t run down the family pot in a rush to court.

“If you approach the whole separation issue openly and in a business-like way, it can be done relatively easily . . . Or you can litigate and throw a lot of money at it, and you’re going to end up with often a similar result. Litigation should be a very last resort.”

Justin Spain’s 12 Tips For Staying Sane in a Separation

It will be difficult

Even if it’s your decision to end the relationship, things will probably get worse before they get better. You’ll have to make significant decisions that will affect your financial future and your relationship with your children. Remember too that a separation or divorce will take longer to finalise than you think, particularly if communication has broken down.

Be careful about moving out of the family home

Removing yourself from the home may provide a respite from hostilities, but it may be the wrong move strategically. If moving out resolves the situation for one partner, it will remove their motivation for finalising the separation, and leave the other in limbo.

If you have children, try to agree arrangements outside the legal process

You and your spouse will have to work together as parents long after the legal process has ended. Try to resolve issues with a mediator or therapist rather than fighting about it through solicitors.

Try to agree who gets what without using solicitors

Don’t let things get out of perspective. It’s usually cheaper to replace the item you’re arguing over than to use solicitors to fight about it.

Make sure you get early legal advice, particularly if your partner is from outside Ireland

If one of you qualifies as resident in another country, it’s possible that proceedings can be issued outside Ireland. If this is a possibility, it’s essential that you seek legal advice as soon as possible to make sure proceedings are dealt with in Ireland.

You may not be able to take the children out of the country

Children of married parents can’t be taken out of the country without the permission of both parents or the consent of a court. If you take the children to another country, you may be guilty of a criminal offence.

The court won’t care if your partner was unfaithful

In the vast majority of cases, the court will not take the misconduct of one party into account when deciding how to divide things up. Take advice before wasting money on private investigators.

Money spent on lawyers means less for the family

Fully contested judicial proceedings may have serious cost implications for both of you, because usually, each party looks after its own costs. Approaching matters in a business-like manner from the start will mean you’ll spend less on legal costs.

Do your research before deciding on a solicitor

Your relationship with your solicitor is very important, so take your time before deciding who to retain. Don’t make your decision on the basis of how much he or she charges per hour; an experienced solicitor who works swiftly can be more cost-effective than one who charges a lower rate but who may not have the same experience.

Consider counselling

Your solicitor should always be supportive, but don’t rely on him for everything. You may need the help of a counsellor or a therapist to deal with the emotional fallout.

Be open with your solicitor

Your solicitor will be able to deal with issues if he or she is aware of all the facts. However, if skeletons fall out of the closet when the case is in court, and when it’s too late for your advisers to deal with them, it may have negative implications for your case.

Life goes on

Finally, try to maintain a sense of perspective and your sense of humour. Life goes on after separation or divorce. Things will get better once the process has been finalised.

Independent | Thur, Jul 19, 2012 | Link to Indepentdent Article

Required birth registration will not boost fathers’ rights

THE LAW on guardianship of children dates from 1964 and is in urgent need of reform.

Unfortunately, the Government’s current reform proposal is limited in scope and fails to address some of the substantive shortcomings in the current framework of family law.

The introduction, in isolation, of compulsory joint registration of births is not in keeping with the undertaking in the Programme for Government to reform and modernise family law in line with recommendations of the Law Reform Commission.

The commission’s report, Legal Aspects of Family Relationships, proposed extending automatic guardianship rights to all parents, regardless of marital status.

Compulsory joint registration of births was only one aspect of a much broader scheme of reform. The Government is focusing on the low-hanging fruit instead of engaging in the root-and-branch reform that is necessary.

Compulsory joint registration of births means the name of both the mother and father would appear on the birth certificate of every child. It is relatively uncontroversial to suggest a child should have information about, or at the very least the name of, both parents.

However, Irish law does not at present require the name of both parents on the birth certificate of a child. Where parents are married, both names are usually entered on the birth certificate. Where a non-marital mother registers a birth alone she will not be asked about the father.

There are myriad reasons why the father’s name may not be included on the birth certificate of a child born to non-married parents. One reason is the urgency associated with getting the birth registered, as registration triggers the payment of child benefit.

The process for registering a non-marital father on the birth certificate is logistically complex. In many cases, therefore, the intention may be to re-register the birth to include the father’s name at a later stage, once social welfare payments are activated, but this is often not done.

In some cases the father’s name may be omitted in the mistaken belief this will ensure he does not become a guardian. In fact, under the current law, the inclusion of the father’s name on the birth certificate gives rise to no legal rights or responsibilities.

Alternatively, the mother may genuinely not know who the father is or she may know but not wish to enter the name on the birth certificate for a variety of reasons including, for example, rape, incest or fear of violence.

From a children’s rights perspective it is possible to view compulsory joint registration as a positive development, as it is a means to vindicate the right of the child to know the identity of his or her parents.

There are also medical and social reasons why it is important for an individual to know his or her genetic background, one example being to avoid unknowingly entering into a relationship with a relative.

However, the push to introduce compulsory joint registration in isolation is concerning. Requiring the names of all parents to be registered, while benefiting the child, will also provide the State with information on the family status of a greater proportion of the population.

During a period when the State’s finances are strained, and over €1 billion was spent on the One-Parent Family Payment in 2010, it is not unreasonable to suggest this information may be used in the future to pursue parents to recoup some of that expenditure.

In principle there is no objection to requiring a parent to contribute to the cost of raising his or her child. However, with responsibilities should come rights, and the difficulty is that the current law on guardianship grants very limited rights to non-marital fathers.

At present, unless the mother agrees to extend guardianship rights to the non-marital father, he can only obtain guardianship by court order. To address this inequality, the commission recommended the introduction of automatic guardianship rights for non-marital fathers. It suggested a trigger mechanism for activating guardianship and considered that being named on the birth certificate would be appropriate.

This was to ensure that all parties concerned would have a record of who was a parental guardian of a child. To guarantee that practically all non-marital fathers would be registered on the birth certificate, and therefore entitled to guardianship, the commission recommended compulsory joint registration.

It accepted such a system would be subject to limited exceptions, for example where the mother genuinely does not know the identity of the father or where there is a risk to the health or wellbeing of mother or child.

However, by introducing only one aspect of this reform proposal, compulsory joint registration of births, the Government is increasing responsibilities without creating concomitant rights. In so doing it is undermining the spirit of the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations.

Dr Claire Murray is a lecturer in the Faculty of Law, University College Cork and was the principal legal researcher on the Law Reform Commission’s Legal Aspects of Family Relationships report

By CLAIRE MURRAY – Irish Times | Wed, Jun 06, 2012 | Link to Irish Times Article

Solicitor fails in attempt to have ‘commitment gifts’ returned

A DUBLIN solicitor has told the Circuit Civil Court that he bought expensive jewellery and an oil painting as “commitment gifts” to his former partner but expected to get them back.

His former girlfriend, a legal assistant, won a court order to hold on to them and was awarded legal costs against her former lover.

Conor Bowman told Judge Jacqueline Linnane that Matthew Wales had bought Stella Conlon a diamond ring worth €12,000, a Rolex watch worth €5,000 and a Norman Teeling painting worth €5,500.

Mr Wales, Roebuck Castle, Clonskeagh, Dublin, told Mr Bowman, for Ms Conlon, that he had bought the ring in the company of Ms Conlon and had told her it was a commitment gift given as “a token of an exclusive relationship”.

Judge Linnane heard that the Rolex watch had been given as a Christmas gift. Mr Wales said other items he had bought had less value and he was not interested in getting them back.

Ms Conlon, Temple Hall, Mount Saint Anne’s, Milltown, Dublin, said she had become aware that Mr Wales wanted the three items returned two years after their relationship ended in 2009.

She told the court that she and Mr Wales had been in a mutual relationship from 2006 and she never expected she would have to give the gifts back.

She said she understood the ring had been given as “a sign of love”.

She said Mr Wales was a generous man and she would not have accepted the gifts if she had expected the relationship would eventually end.

The court heard they had been together when Mr Wales bought the Molly Malone painting by Teeling. Ms Conlon denied that she had known that he had hung it in her apartment temporarily. She said her friends were aware it was a gift from him.

Mr Bowman said that when the relationship ended, Mr Wales had returned to Ms Conlon’s apartment in her absence, using a key he had, to collect his belongings. He said Mr Wales did not take the painting, which was on the wall.

Judge Linnane, dismissing Mr Wales’s claim, said Ms Conlon was entitled to retain the gifts as they had been given to her unconditionally.

Irish Times | Fri, May 04, 2012 | Link to Irish Times Article

Bill proposes full legal status for humanist weddings

THE GOVERNMENT is expected to agree today to back legislation giving humanists the same status as organised religions and civil registrars in conducting marriage ceremonies.

Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton is due to ask her ministerial colleagues to support the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill at this morning’s Cabinet meeting.

The legislation was introduced in the Seanad as a Private Members’ Bill by Trinity College Senator Ivana Bacik and is due to pass final stages in the Upper House tomorrow.

The Bill proposes to amend the Civil Registration Act 2004, which regulates the registration of civil marriages.

The 2004 Act stipulates that, apart from Health Service Executive registrars, only a member of a “religious body” may celebrate legal marriages.

This is defined as “an organised group of people, members of which meet regularly for common religious worship”.

This includes organisations such as the Pagan Federation Ireland and the Spiritualist Union of Ireland, which have obtained registration under the Act.

But the definition excludes members of the Humanist Association of Ireland, who currently conduct humanist wedding ceremonies even though these are not legally recognised.

The Bill proposes to extend the right to conduct civil marriages to nonreligious groups such as the HAI. A group of this nature must be a “philosophical and nonconfessional body”, have been performing marriage ceremonies for at least five years, and at least 20 couples must have participated in the ceremony.

Once the Bill has passed through the Seanad tomorrow, it will proceed to the Dáil, where it is expected to be introduced by Ms Burton.

Brian Whiteside of the HAI said that, in the past, it had been “left out in the cold” but persisted in its efforts to obtain the right to solemnise marriages and have “parity of esteem” with religious bodies.

There had been “no real progress” until the change of government last year, when Ms Bacik agreed to take up their cause.

“As the law stands presently a couple cannot have a legally binding, nonreligious marriage ceremony on a Saturday, as the State registrars work only Monday to Friday,” he added.

The proportion of couples choosing a non-religious, civil wedding ceremony in Ireland has increased from 6 per cent in 1996 to more than 23 per cent in 2006, according to the Central Statistics Office.

Humanism is defined as “an ethical philosophy of life, based on a concern for humanity, which combines reason with compassion”.

The HAI has nine accredited celebrants who conducted 153 marriage ceremonies last year.

By Deaglan De Breadun – Irish Times | Tue, May 01, 2012 | Link to Irish Times Article