The High Court dismissed two consolidated actions in which a husband challenged the constitutionality of legislation governing judicial separation, divorce, maintenance and financial orders between spouses. The court declined all relief sought, including declarations and an order to quash earlier matrimonial orders.
The actions concerned orders made in proceedings between the plaintiff and his wife. Those orders included maintenance, sale of the family home and division of its proceeds, and provision affecting pension entitlements. In a 2004 Circuit appeal, the court ordered that the net sale proceeds be divided 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to his wife. It also made other property, pension and maintenance orders.
The plaintiff argued that the legislation gave courts powers over property rights that, under the Constitution, belonged to the Oireachtas. He sought declarations that provisions of the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976, the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989 and the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 were unconstitutional. In a second action, he also challenged provisions of the 1989 Act, alleged that the State had failed to protect his marriage, and sought damages from the Attorney General.
The court said the challenges to provisions of the 1989 Act had already been addressed by the Supreme Court in *T.F. v. Ireland and the Attorney General*. It held that the plaintiff could not establish a relevant factual or legal distinction from that decision. The court also noted that a separate Circuit appeal had addressed his challenge to the 1989 Act.
As to the 1996 Act, the court found no fundamental distinction between its financial provisions and those of the 1989 Act. It said the Constitution, following the Fifteenth Amendment, allowed divorce subject to conditions including proper provision for spouses and children, and that the legislation provided for that requirement. The plaintiff had not established a constitutional infirmity in those provisions.
The court also rejected the claim concerning the Attorney General, finding no justiciable issue had been raised and no substance in the submission. It said it was unnecessary to make findings on the plaintiff’s claims about past diagnoses and hospital detention. The judgment gives reasons for a dismissal already announced at the end of the hearing; it does not set out a new order changing the earlier matrimonial arrangements.