Applicant dismissed for failing to prove ordinary residence in Ireland throughout the relationship period.

APPROVED

REDACTED

FOR PUBLICATION

[2025] IEHC 547

THE HIGH COURT

FAMILY LAW

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL PARTNERSHIP AND CERTAIN RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF COHABITANTS ACT, 2010

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT, 1964

IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW (MAINTENANCE OF SPOUSES AND CHILDREN) ACT, 1976

IN THE MATTER OF THE STATUS OF CHILDREN ACT, 1987

IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT, 1995

IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT, 1996

Record No. HM 2024.42

BETWEEN:

S.C

Applicant

And

B.T

Respondent

Judgment of Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson delivered on the 13th of October 2025.

INTRODUCTION

1. The Applicant issued a Special Summons seeking, inter alia, relief pursuant to the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010 (“the 2010 Act”) on the 11th of March 2024. In the endorsement on the Summons, she asserts residence at two addresses, one in England and one in Ireland. She asserts that the parties have cohabited for in excess of three years, having commenced a relationship in May 2020 (the Respondent avers that the relationship commenced in July 2020, but I do not believe many turns on this). She says that they commenced living together in September 2020 and that they “shared their time together between two homes” one in each jurisdiction (the address of the Irish property changed over the period concerned). In relation to the property in Ireland (I assume this is with reference to the second address provided as the Respondent was already resident in the first address when the relationship began), she asserts that when “the parties”

moved into the property in Ireland, she was solely responsible for the furnishing and decoration of it. She ensured that the property was a home for the Respondent’s children (from his marriage) and that she was responsible for “all domestic duties and organising the childrens (sic) extracurricular activities in the home.”

2. The parties had a child during the course of their relationship, born in November 2023, a child greatly loved by them both. The Applicant asserts prior “fertility treatment and investigations” and that she “suffered a number of miscarriages” with January 2022 and November 2022 expressly pleaded. Undoubtedly, these are events of huge emotion, positive and negative, as between the parties. The Applicant asserts that the parties’ child, due to illness, has required urgent treatment in Ireland and in England.

3. She references the “family home in Ireland” being a rented property, the Respondent being the sole tenant of it. She says that it was intended to purchase a joint property in Ireland in 2022 but that this did not proceed.

4. She indicates that, prior to the relationship, she was financially independent. Indeed, she would appear to have had a senior and responsible role in the Respondent’s company prior to the commencement of the relationship. She asserts that there was mutual agreement between the parties that she would cease work prior to the birth of their child in view of the conception difficulties and miscarriages previously experienced. It is entirely understandable that the parties would be fearful after such experiences and that they would wish to alleviate risk to the greatest extent possible.

The Applicant asserts that she remained a full-time carer for the parties’ child after her birth due to complex health issues arising. By the time of the conclusion of the hearing of this preliminary issue, the Applicant had returned to remunerative employment, and she is clearly a person of great ability and competence in this regard. The Applicant asserts to being the primary carer of the child and that “she has been responsible for the running of the Parties’ households.”

5. Unhappy differences arose between the parties. The Special Summons does not assert a date of relationship breakdown.

6. An Affidavit of Welfare was sworn by the Applicant on the 24th of June 2024. The address of the deponent is stated to be in England and a similar address is deposed to as the place at which the child now lives. This is a rental property in England of which the Applicant is the sole tenant. This is the same English property which is alleged to have been a place of residence of the parties in England at all material times during their relationship. This is also the address of the Applicant in the Affidavit of Means sworn by her on the 24th of June 2024. In relation to this Affidavit of Means, the account details of the bank accounts of the Applicant are stated. While there are Revolut accounts in various currencies referenced, I note that the account numbers all relate to England (GB references) and there is, in addition, a Natwest account. She does reference having the use of a VISA card in the Respondent’s sole name for “additional spending.” The income, liabilities and expenditure referenced are all deposed to in sterling. I note that the debts listed which relate to birth expenses relating to the child, utilities, rent arrears and veterinary bills are all in sterling. I believe that it is reasonable to extrapolate from these deposed debts that all of them relate to expenditure in England. I further note that the Affidavits of Means and Welfare aforementioned were sworn by the Applicant in England before an English solicitor.

7. A motion for interim maintenance was issued by the Applicant on the 27th of June 2024. This motion has been heard and determined previously (I note that this has now been re-entered and is for further consideration in that context). The Affidavit grounding that motion is also sworn in England. This Affidavit deposes to the health issues being experienced by the child of the parties and reference is made therein to a number of health professionals. All of these health professionals practice in England.

There is also reference to the child requiring hospital attention. This took place at a hospital in England, it would appear. There is one reference to the child being hospitalised in Ireland, receiving hospital or other health care in Ireland. There was an attendance at Temple Street Children’s Hospital during time in Dublin in late 2023.

This was an emergency situation. No other health care events in Ireland for either the Applicant or the parties’ child have been referenced.

8. It is common case that the Applicant had the use of a credit card of the Respondent, but the Respondent denies that this was free use. He says, in his Affidavit of the 30th of July 2024, that this card usage related to online sites such as Amazon and that the Applicant “was entitled to use my card once she had spoken to me and in order to purchase items for my children. The Applicant never had a physical or virtual card.

It was never a card for her unfettered use.” He deposes that the Applicant desire to hold a card linked to his account was a source of disagreement between them.

9. There is legal correspondence exhibited in this Affidavit. This is from an English solicitor retained by the Respondent. It is common case that there are parental responsibility proceedings ongoing in England, instituted by the Respondent. It is common case that the English courts’ jurisdiction to hear and determine such proceedings is on the basis of the child being habitually resident in that jurisdiction.

10. A replying Affidavit to the maintenance application was sworn by the Respondent on the 30th of July 2024. As with the Affidavit of the Applicant, I refer to this only in so far as it is of relevance to the issue of ordinary residence of the Applicant now under consideration. The Respondent deposes that:

A. The Applicant and the child are habitually resident in England.

B. The issue of jurisdiction is raised by him in that he deposes that the Applicant was not ordinarily resident in the State throughout the one-year period prior to the end of the parties’ relationship.

C. He denies that the parties ever lived together in Ireland. He states that each retained their own rented accommodation in England. He references there being no joint leases and that they each had their separate utility bills for each residence. He states that neither had a key to the property of the other. He avers that there were cessations of the relationship over the years, with subsequent resumption of such relationship.

D. There is a dispute between the parties in relation to whether or not they were ever engaged. The Applicant states that they were, the Respondent that they were not, although he accepts that there was discussion of getting married.

E. It is clear from this Affidavit that there is no suggestion other than that the parties’ child will have her primary residence in England with her mother.

11. The Applicant’s verifying Affidavit in these proceedings was sworn on the 28th of August 2024. The averments in it are similar to the matters pleaded in the endorsement on the Special Summons but, as is usual, the Affidavit is a little more detailed. The address of the Deponent is the English rental property, rented in her sole name. She avers as follows:

(i) That the parties, from September 2020, lived together and “shared”

their time together between two homes in Ireland and England. The various rental properties are identified. It is agreed that the rental agreements relating to the English property were in the sole name of the Applicant and those relating to the Irish properties were in the sole name of the Respondent. While it appears that the Respondent discharged a portion of the rent relating to the English property for a period, there is no evidence that the Applicant made any contribution to the rent payable in respect of the Irish properties.

(ii) The Applicant deposes to her contributions to the second Irish property (being the one which was moved into during the course of the relationship). She states, in particular, that she was solely responsible for the furnishing and decoration of such Irish property; that she ensured that the property was a home for the Respondent’s children from his marriage; that she was responsible for all domestic duties and organising the children’s extra-curricular activities in the home and that she formed good relationships with the said children. She avers to being responsible for the running of the “households” of the parties “in both Ireland and England”.

(iii) She avers that the parties became engaged and that wedding plans were put in train (the USA being the intended venue) but that the wedding was “postponed because we decided to prioritise having children first.” She avers that a later wedding venue in the South of France was envisaged. She avers that the parties spoke with the wedding planner in the US from “our kitchen” in Ireland, via Zoom.

(iv) She references fertility investigations and treatment and, tragically, two miscarriages.

(v) She avers to the urgent medical care required by the child of the relationship and that such care has been required in Ireland and in England.

(vi) She avers that the parties intended to purchase a property in Ireland in September 2022 but that this did not proceed.

(vii) In relation to accommodation in Ireland, the Applicant avers that the parties first resided together, until June 2022, in Rental Property A in Dublin. Rental Property B would appear to have been rented by the Respondent pursuant to a lease in his sole name from in or about that date. The Applicant avers that they located the Rental Property B together “as a couple”. She avers that this was a bigger property than Rental Property A as the parties wished to start a family. Her asserted role is averred to, and I consider it appropriate to recite this:

“I say that I decorated the property and was responsible for all domestic matters. I say that I was charged with the day to day running of our family home. I say that I assisted the Respondent with his children including purchasing clothes for them and arranging their activities while they were in our care.”

(viii) The Applicant indicates that she was gainfully occupied in an employment situation until January 2022 (in the Respondent’s company) but that after that date she became self-employed. She avers “I say that once I was self-employed that this gave this Deponent more flexible (sic), and the majority of my clients were base (sic) in Dublin with the exception of one client that I had in London who I dealt with remotely.”

(ix) The Applicant deposes to having spent “the majority of our time in our home in Dublin” in the Spring of 2023. She references some exceptions to this when she was in England for “a few Saturdays”.

She says that Easter was spent in “our home” in Ireland where a large Egg hunt was held for the Respondent’s children and that she decorated the house for this event.1 It is unclear from the verifying

The Respondent has three children of his marriage. There are no dates of birth in the Affidavit of Welfare (sworn in June 2024) of the Applicant but it is stated that the eldest has attained majority and is on the cusp of

Affidavit if this averment relates only to 2023 or relates to every Easter. She avers that she also decorated the house for Christmas and bought festive presents for the Respondent’s children.

(x) The Applicant avers that it was agreed that she would remain in England for the birth of the parties’ child so that she could have the assistance of her family of origin but that they would “travel back to Dublin at the first safe available opportunity on the 31st of December 2023.”

(xi) She avers that she spent the summer of 2023 “in our home in [Ireland]”, that she carried out decoration of a bedroom for the Respondent’s youngest child of his marriage and that that she spent a lot of time with this child “when she was in our care as the Respondent had a lot of work on.” She avers to having first decorated this room when the parties moved into the property in 2022. Later in 2023, the Applicant avers that she again decorated this room although I am unclear if one or two redecorations are averred to have occurred in 2023.

(xii) She avers that she commenced decorating the Irish nursery room in August 2023 and details the decorations carried out. The averments appear to indicate that this continued into the autumn.

(xiii) She avers that she organised a deep clean service of the Irish house and hired a cleaner for it.

(xiv) She avers that the parties agreed that she would organise the households in Ireland and in England while the Respondent worked.

(xv) She avers that she was assured by the Respondent that they were financially secure and that she could take maternity leave until March 2025, when the child would be circa one year and five months. There is reference that “the Respondent had the nursery booked” but it is unclear whether this was in Ireland or England.

(xvi) In the time immediately preceding the birth of the child, the parties would appear to have been based in England, but both would travel entering third level education and lives with the mother, that the second is 16 and living full time with the mother and that the youngest is 11 years and spends one overnight mid-week and every second weekend with the Respondent.

back to Ireland for the mid-week access enjoyed by the Respondent, the Applicant avers.

(xvii) Following the birth, about 4 – 5 weeks later, the Applicant avers that the parties travelled to Ireland with the baby, and she was “introduced to her siblings and his family in our home.”

(xviii) The Applicant avers to a deterioration in the relationship of the parties in early 2024 during a visit to Ireland. The Applicant avers that they all returned to England but that the Respondent had to leave shortly thereafter due to his mother’s serious ill-health. She avers that her offer to accompany him to Ireland was refused. It is averred that he likewise did not wish the Applicant to attend his mother’s funeral.

Serious deterioration in the relationship is averred to have occurred thereafter. The Applicant avers that it was made known to her that she and the child were not welcome in the house in Ireland and that the Respondent informed her that he had deposed of the belongings of herself and the child from the Irish property. The Applicant avers that the Respondent became romantically involved with a third party at this time.

(xix) There is no specific date of relationship breakdown averred to in the verifying Affidavit but in the verifying Affidavit (August 2024) the Applicant avers that the relationship has broken down stating “Since the breakdown of our relationship …”. It would appear that the Applicant’s position is that there was breakdown sometime around March 2024 and the Summons herein was issued on the 11th of March 2024.

THE MOTION UNDER CONSIDERATION

12. The motion under consideration was issued by the Respondent on the 12th of September 2024 and there are numerous reliefs sought therein. Some of these have been previously determined. The reliefs at 7 and 8 of the Motion are those currently before me:

“7. An Order declaring that this Honourable Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to determine the reliefs sought pursuant to the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010, as there is neither a plea nor evidence from the Applicant that she was ordinarily resident in the State throughout the one-year period prior to the end of the relationship as required by Section 196(3).

8. An Order striking out the Applicant’s proceedings pursuant to the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010 on the basis that this Honourable Court cannot exercise jurisdiction for the reason set out in Paragraph 7 above.”

13. While it is accurate that there is no reference to “ordinary residence” in the pleadings filed or Affidavits sworn by the Applicant prior to the date of this Motion, it is clear from the narrative of both the pleadings and affidavits that the Applicant asserts that the parties lived together from in or about September 2020 and that they did so in homes in England and Ireland over that time. The issue in respect of which preliminary determination is sought has been clarified to be a determination as to whether or not the Applicant was ordinarily resident in Ireland throughout the period of one year prior to the ending of the relationship between the parties.

14. The Respondent’s motion is grounded upon an Affidavit sworn by him on the 11th of September 2024. Of course, as the motion sought many additional reliefs, the Affidavit of the Respondent deals with many other things as well as the issue now being considered. In so far as that issue is concerned, he avers:

(i) The Applicant is an English national who was neither ordinarily resident nor domiciled in Ireland during the course of the relationship of the parties.

(ii) He avers to there having been numerous breakups as between the parties in the course of their relationship2 and he denies that they lived together in any manner.3

The requirement of continuity in respect of the duration of the relationship as required by s. 172 of the 2010, such duration being different depending on whether there are children of the relationship, has been the subject of judicial consideration in MW v DC [2017] IECA 255 (Finlay Geoghegan J.) and XY v. ZW [2019] IEHC 257 (Binchy J.). The relevant period for the purposes of section 172(5) of the 2010 Act in the present case is two years. This is not an issue which arises in the context of the present application.

The 2010 Act requires the parties to have lived together in an intimate and committed relationship (section xx of the 2010 Act). Again, this is not an issue which arises in the context of the present application.

(iii) He states that the total period spent by the Applicant in Ireland in 2023 was 19 days. He denies that they lived together in Ireland at all. He says that the relationship was conducted mainly in the United Kingdom.

(iv) He avers that neither had keys to the other’s property and they did not own a family home together.

(v) He references the birth of their child being in England in November 2023 and avers that the Applicant and their child are habitually there.

15. The Applicant filed a replying Affidavit to the motion sworn on the 15th of October 2024. A further Affidavit entitled “Grounding Affidavit as regards the Preliminary Issue” was sworn by her on the 13th of December 2024. I have considered these two Affidavits together as they together represent her evidential position concerning the aspects of the motion/preliminary issue now under consideration. There are many matters deposed to in these Affidavits. I have endeavoured to extract those relevant to the issue of the ordinary residence of the Applicant in Ireland between in or about January 2023 and March 2024, this being the relevant period for the purposes of section 196 of the 2010 Act. I did indicate to the parties’ Counsel during the hearing that, of course, the issue of ordinary residence during this time might well be informed by the lifestyles and circumstances of the parties prior to 2023 but the relevant period of ordinary residence is approximately those dates referenced previously in this paragraph. Some evidence in relation to pre-2023 circumstances was adduced.

16. She avers in the first Affidavit (15th October 2024):

A. The relationship commenced in July 2020. She deposes to her fertility and conception difficulties and tragedies. She avers to the trauma of “three difficult miscarriages” and to her undergoing IVF treatment. She subsequently avers that the parties’ child was ultimately conceived naturally without medical interventions.

B. She denies that her time in Ireland in 2023 was only of 19 days duration. She says that the time spent in Ireland for the Respondent’s birthday celebrations in 2023 alone exceed this number.

C. She avers that she lived in the property in Dublin and that this was their joint home. The detail of her averment in this regard is important so I will recite it in full:

“I say that every single element of running the home fell upon me. I say that I did all the food shopping, organised the cleaner, redecorated the house and I bought all the supplies for the children. Both the Respondent and I kept keys of our homes in safe place knowing (sic) to one another. The keys to our home in [Ireland] were kept under a large grey/stone plant pot. The keys in [England] were kept with the concierge, always. I stayed in the [Irish] home when the Respondent was not present. I say that I took care of the Respondent’s [child (named)] from his marriage in our home many times during 2023 when the Respondent was not present. I say that in October 2023 when I was heavily pregnant I did not travel to our home in [Ireland] but the Respondent spent time with me in [England]. I say that I had a ‘fit to fly’ certificate from late on in the pregnancy because the airline was concerned about how heavily pregnant I was whilst still travelling to our home.”

A medical certificate from an English obstetrician is exhibited dated the 19th of October 2023.

D. The Applicant then avers to the marriage plans of the parties. Emails are exhibited which indicate planning for a marriage ceremony to take place in Las Vegas USA in or about April 2023 and the cancellation of same in or about February 2023. It appears that all of the correspondence about this was in or about February 2023. The confirmation of the booking is addressed to both parties at the English address. The Respondent’s cancellation email dated the 27th of February 2023 speaks of indefinite postponement. The Applicant avers to postponement and a plan to marriage in France after the birth of their child.

E. The Applicant avers to being ordinarily resident in two places during this time, Ireland and England. The birth of the child in England was due to the Applicant’s family of origin being there, members of which she wished to have present at the birth of her child

F. She avers that she and the parties’ child now live in the English property as the Respondent has obstructed access to the Irish property. Somewhat unusually, proceedings having issued on the 11th of March 2024, it is averred that the Applicant returned to Ireland and to the Irish home at Easter 2024 and a reconciliation was attempted and that she “immediately resumed the role of running our household and taking care of the Respondent’s daughter when he was working”. I take judicial notice that Easter Sunday 2024 was the 31st of March 2024, 20 days after the issuing of the substantive proceedings herein. In any event, the subsequent averments indicate that, on the Applicant’s case, there was a definitive cessation of the relationship thereafter and that she was excluded from the Irish property by the Respondent. She avers that planned time with the child and herself in April 2024 was cancelled by the Respondent who told her “not to attend our home” in Ireland.

In the second Affidavit (13th November 2024):4

G. She avers to the parties having “shared our time together” between the two homes. She denies that her time in Ireland was “visits”. She again avers to running two households in two jurisdictions.

H. She again references her sole responsibility for “furnishing and decoration” of the rental property in Ireland in 2022 and the provision of a home for the Respondent’s then children. She avers:

“I say the Respondent brought nothing with him by way of furnishings or household items and it was up to me to organise the fit out and furnishings of the two properties which the Respondent and I paid for. I say that I was responsible for all domestic duties and organising the children’s extra curricular activities in the home.”

I. The Applicant exhibits her communications with one of the Respondent’s children (his then youngest child then aged circa. 10 years). The Applicant avers that these correspondences relate to life in Ireland. These exhibits demonstrate friendly chats between the Applicant and the child albeit with some reservation on the part of the child being evident. Clearly the Applicant is endeavouring to develop a relationship with the child. They do not appear to me to link the Applicant with Ireland, on the contrary she would appear, mainly, to be corresponding from afar.

They do not evidence the quasi-parental role which the Applicant asserts. They appear to relate to fun type activities rather than day to day events. There is a reference to “Daddy’s house”.

Averments which are repeated in the Second Affidavit are not set out.

J. She avers that “whilst in Ireland” she bought the shopping every fortnight almost without fail for four years.

K. She avers that she sent recipes to the Respondent for dishes he would cook “whilst in Ireland”. It is unclear whether these were dishes to be cooked by the Respondent while he was in Ireland or while the Applicant was in Ireland.

L. She avers to making Amazon orders “to our [Irish] home”. She references 1832 such deliveries. It is unclear from the exhibited documents if these orders were made by her in England or in Ireland. Under cross-examination, it emerged that most of these orders were made by the Applicant in England.

M. She organised a birthday celebration itinerary in Ireland for the Respondent during the summer of 2023 and she was the hostess. Documentation and photographs pertaining to these celebrations are exhibited. It is undoubtedly the case that the Applicant put much effort into organising a special celebration.

N. She avers to communicating with the cleaner of the Irish house via Facebook.

Messages are exhibited. These seem to relate to a discreet period at the time of the change of rental property in Ireland in the summer of 2022.

O. She avers that she made a welcome home “in both our houses” for the Respondent’s children of his marriage and she organised events “such as Treasure Hunts etc.”.

P. The Applicant avers to money transfers via Revolute and transfers between accounts of relevant currencies so that she “could use either account in either jurisdiction without penalty.”

Q. She confirms that she was not registered to vote in Ireland but that this was due to her involvement with a political party in England such as would make voting in Ireland “inconsistent”. She references the preliminary stages of involvement in a women’s charity in Ireland which involvement did not proceed due to her pregnancy.

R. She avers that the Respondent’s children and their paternal grandmother visited the parties’ home in England and stayed there.

S. She avers to decorating a nursery for the parties’ child in Ireland. Messages with the decorator are exhibited. The Respondent appears to have had some involvement also in this regard.

T. She avers to employing a night nurse and that this nurse was employed on the basis that the parties had two homes and divided their time between them. She avers that this night nurse “came to both Ireland and England.” An email from this childcare provider is exhibited but no Affidavit was sworn by this person, and she was not called as a witness. The extant motion had issued two months prior to the date of this email.

U. In the Second Affidavit, the Applicant avers that she “was advised not to travel in the first trimester given my previous miscarriages which is the reason I remained in the UK for that period and limited my travel thereafter.” In this regard, she references the need to alter previous engagement with Ireland due to her pregnancy and avers to different lifestyles/travel arrangements in 2021, 2022 and 2023, prior to her pregnancy. These averments must be considered in the light of the “fit to fly” document previously referred to but, of course, the relevant times are somewhat different. The Applicant appears to aver that she curtailed her time in Ireland at the commencement of her pregnancy due to her obstetric history while the exhibit indicates that these curtailments did not arise later in the pregnancy, but she avers that she confined herself to England towards the end of the pregnancy due to wishing her family member to attend with her and the Respondent at the birth.

V. She avers that the Respondent’s mother was to look after the baby in Ireland when she returned to work (this was to be in March 2025) but that this lady’s death occurred shortly after the birth of her grandchild. She avers that the plan was that “it was intended that [the child] and I would be in Ireland every other Tuesday for a minimum of one week when the other children would be on overnight access.”

W. The birth of the child was registered in England and the child flew, under six months of age, with her birth certificate. No Irish passport was obtained, the Applicant avers, as she was fearful due to the threats of the Respondent.

X. It appears that the child is covered for health insurance in England. The Applicant avers that this is because the Respondent could not have her included on his Irish policy due to the terms and conditions of his arrangements with his marital family.

17. A replying Affidavit was sworn by the Respondent on the 13th of December 2024.

The relevant averments in this are:

(i) He disputes that many of the averments of the Applicant relate to residence in Ireland or, indeed, that they even place her in Ireland. He avers to the cessation of the relationship in January 2024. He avers to the Applicant having spent “a total of 33 days in Ireland in the 12 months prior to 11th March 2024”. He avers that during this time she visited on eight occasions, and these were mostly 2-day trips. He references two longer visits being five days for birthday celebrations and 11 days over the period when his mother was terminally ill. He references these events as not being “ordinary” but of some exceptional nature. Flight and travel schedules are exhibited in support of this averment. I considered these exhibits, and I note that the Applicant would appear to have invariably travelled with luggage and on a number of occasions with a 20kg suitcase, on one occasion there was 40kg of luggage for the journey.

(ii) He avers to staying in her home in England as a “visitor” and she did likewise in his home. While the precise date is unclear, he avers that they did not enter the home of the other without the other being present. He denies that the Applicant ran his household. He avers to paying his own rent on the Irish property. He avers that he paid all bills and outgoings relating to the Irish property as the Applicant did in respect of the English property. He avers that the Applicant kept minimal belongings in his house, consistent with visitation only, and she brought what she needed on each visit. He denies she kept any personal effects in his house.

(iii) He denies her sole responsibility for furnishing and decorating his house. He says he was fully involved and paid for all such items. He denies that the Applicant had the role in his children’s (of his marriage) for which she contends. He references the youngest of his marital children only and says that this child had extra-curricular activities, which her mother organised, on access visit days and that he brought her to these. He references the involvement of the Applicant as that of someone with whom he was in a relationship and definitively rejects that there was any “stepmother” role. He avers that there was no relationship between the Applicant and the middle child of the marriage and, while he acknowledges the Applicant’s friendliness to his other two children, he says that she saw them infrequently. He acknowledges that the Applicant had an involvement in the decoration of a room for the youngest child when he moved house in 2022, but he says that this was in the context of friendly relations with someone with whom he was in a relationship rather than in the context of “any more substantive role” in the child’s life.

(iv) He avers to a turbulent relationship with many breakups. He avers to each of them dating other people during these periods. One such break up period he avers to is between October 2022 and February 2023. Allegations of threatening and inappropriate behaviour on the part of the Applicant at the end of the relationship are also averred to. There is also a reference to the Applicant being in another relationship at this time.

“She threatened that her boyfriend would come to my house and that she would leave [the child] unannounced at the house. I told the Applicant that if anyone came to my house, particularly when I was looking after my other children that I would call the guards.”

(v) He accepts that the Applicant would “occasionally” organise online grocery deliveries and suggest recipes for him to cook. Importantly, he avers that “almost exclusively this was done from [England].” The duration of such activities is also disputed. The Respondent avers that the Applicant, while in England, would place orders for delivery to his house for which he would pay (she would use his card with him approving the transactions). He avers to his own domestic competence. He avers to an analysis of his financial documentation which shows that of 73 grocery orders in the March 2023 to March 2024 period, the Applicant submitted 27 receipts (37% he avers). He says that he did not ask the Applicant to engage in such shopping tasks but that she did so of her own volition.

(vi) He avers to online ordering of items for delivery in one jurisdiction or the other. He avers that those to Ireland were paid for by him, if the Applicant ordered these, he would approve the use of his bank card. He avers to having ordered “electronic” goods himself for delivery to England.

(vii) He avers to difficulties between the Applicant and his family. He avers to the organisation of his birthday celebrations and the Applicant’s role in this. He acknowledges some role but not to the extent and of the exclusive responsibility indicated by the Applicant. He says that he paid for all of these celebrations. He avers that his family attended while the Applicant’s family did not. He refers to another birthday celebration which the Applicant did not attend.

(viii) He again references the very short duration of her visits to Ireland and the small number of such visits. Prior to the birthday trip in July 2023, he avers that she had visited Ireland on two occasions that year for a total of four days.

(ix) He denies interactions between the Applicant and any cleaner employed by him or engaged in his house in the twelve months prior to the cessation of the relationship of the parties. He references that the messages exhibited by the Applicant relate to a short, much earlier period, between 19th May 2022 and 10th June 2022 (a period of some three weeks) and he avers that many of these messages were, in any event, sent from the Applicant when she was in England.

(x) He avers that any relationship with his marital children was consistent with being his girlfriend rather than a co-parent.

(xi) The Respondent references the Las Vegas marriage as a “whimsical” idea, discussed in the context of having reconciled in February 2023. He avers that within a short time, they both decided that this was not the right time for such a step and the matter was concluded with his email of 27th February 2023. He references that no flights or hotel were booked. No announcement was made.

Family and friends were not informed, and no ring was purchased. He avers that he believes the Applicant may have had a wedding Pinterest board from 2020/21. He avers that the pregnancy was not a reason for any postponement/cancellation plans as the parties were not aware of the pregnancy at this time. He avers that the date of awareness of the pregnancy was the 21st of April 2023, almost 2 months later.

(xii) He acknowledges that the Applicant had access to his Revolut account in order to purchase items relating to his house. She did not have a physical card rather she had the details necessary for internet purchasing, this usage being subject to his approval. There were no shared finances between them. The Applicant’s own bank accounts were based in England.

(xiii) The Respondent avers that the Applicant had no interest in Irish politics and was not registered to vote. He avers that she expressed a dislike of Ireland due to “our Catholic past.” He avers that he has no knowledge of any involvement in any charity in Ireland. He avers that she was not registered to pay tax in

Ireland and had no doctor or dentist in Ireland. He avers that she had no PRSI number, no Public Service Card and no PPS number in Ireland. She was not on the lease relating to his house (even though there was a change of rental property in 2022). She was unnamed on any utility bill connected with his property. She had no Irish bank account. He avers that she “had no personal or business affairs in Ireland, beyond her relationship with me and the visits she made to see me from time to time.”

(xiv) He acknowledges that his mother stayed in the Applicant’s apartment on one occasion on a trip to England and two of his children did so on 2 or 3 occasions. These would appear to have been city break-type trips to England.

(xv) There is dispute in relation to IVF fertility treatment having been undertaken.

The Respondent avers “we did not undergo IVF or commit any resources to engaging in IVF.” He accepts that there was a miscarriage in 2022. It would appear to be agreed that the Applicant wished to have children; the Respondent appears to have been more ambivalent in this regard, consistent with the Applicant being childless and the Respondent already having three children of his marriage. He denies that the parties were trying to conceive in the spring of 2023. I do not believe that the circumstances of fertility treatment and/or conception and difficulties in this regard assist greatly in determining the issue of the Applicant’s ordinary residence at the relevant time. It is unfortunate that such is the deterioration of the relationship of the parties, who are the parents of a very small child together and in consequence have a long future to navigate, that there is not even agreement on these most personal aspects of their relationship. I have heard the oral testimony of the parties in relation to these matters also. It is my view that these matters can only be relevant in so far as they go to credibility.

(xvi) In relation to the night nurse, the Respondent says that correspondence with her was by the Applicant, and she (the Applicant) would have articulated to this person what her intention was. In any event, he says that by this time the relationship was over and the involvement of this child carer in Ireland never occurred. It would appear that this child carer accompanied the Applicant and the child to Ireland in January 2024 during the time of the Respondent’s mother’s final illness. He avers that it was the Applicant’s intention when she returned to work to work in England and not in Ireland so that the child would have been visiting him in Ireland without the Applicant accompanying her. Of course, no such plans have ever come to fruition. It is my understanding that there is very considerable contention between the parties in relation to contact between the Respondent and the child. This is not a matter for me as it is agreed that the child is habitually resident in England and therefore jurisdiction vests in the English courts. Again, it is most unfortunate that this very young child has commenced life with the burden of parental conflict and litigation concerning parenting arrangements.

(xvii) The Respondent denies any knowledge of travel restrictions or advice to restrict travel during her first trimester of pregnancy. He avers that she travelled to Ireland a number of times in her second trimester as well as travelling to other locations for leisure trips. Referring to an email exhibited by the Applicant, the Respondent admits that he envisaged living in two different countries when the child was born and the email referred to the need for ease of mobility in terms of equipment and such like.

(xviii) He denies any plans that his mother (then aged 79 years) would care for the child while in Ireland. He avers that the Applicant wanted his mother to assist in childcare and was irate that the grandmother would not so commit. While it is fortunate that during the January 2024 visit to Ireland, the child got to meet the paternal grandmother, any involvement of the grandmother obviously ended with her sad passing.

(xix) There is dispute in relation to allegations of post-termination misconduct, but I do not believe this to be relevant to the matter I have to decide, save, that it is common case that the child has never had Irish health insurance but is so insured in England.

18. Notices to cross-examine were served by both sides and extensive cross-examination took place over a number of days.

19. Some additional documentation was provided by the Applicant and the Respondent during the hearing up to and including on the final (4th) day of hearing. I have considered this documentation.

1. There are WhatsApp messages from 2023. These seem to relate to exchanges while both parties were in England and messages during shared holidays abroad. These messages say little about life in Ireland and I did not find anything in them which related to the issue before me. There seems to be an occasion in June 2023 when the Respondent was in the London property without the Applicant (although the messages indicate that she is on her way there). There are photographs which appear to suggest that the parties were intending to announce the pregnancy in or about May 2023. There is also a most kind note from the Applicant to the Respondent’s youngest child regarding the news of the parties having a child. This also appears to have been sent in or about May 2023. It should be recorded that in this letter (which the Applicant produced to the court) she says “I promise your Daddy won’t be away and you will still have lots of time on your own without the baby or I being there. Tiny little thing will happen like sometimes the baby being at your Daddy’s house when you are there, but lots of the time the baby will be in [two alternative cities in England named] with the cats and me.”

(underlining added) (From a previous exhibit of the Applicant, it appears that she has a number of pets at the English property as a note detailing instructions for their care is exhibited.) There would appear to be messages relating to proposed rental properties in England in or about May 2023. There is an indication that more suitable or spacious properties were being investigated. These messages may be relevant to the parties’ relationship at that time, but they do not assist me in relation to the issue of whether or not the Applicant was ordinarily resident in Ireland at that time.

2. Photographs from early in 2024. These are photographs of the parties and members of their families with the new baby. Some of these are in England and some in Ireland. I did not find these photographs materially pertinent to the matter which I have to determine.

3. There was an email exchange provided to me dated January 2023. This was an email exchange in respect of which there is controversy. This was presented by the Applicant as a “confession” letter sent by the Respondent to her but which he indicated he wrote in the context of relationship retrieval and with the Applicant’s assurance that it would not be disclosed. The Respondent alleges that the Applicant then distributed this letter to third parties and caused him considerable distress and anxiety in consequence. It is a letter of concern as to its contents and it makes unpleasant reading. The circumstances of its writing are unclear to me. It is unclear to me why a person would write such a damning and confessional letter if untrue as the Respondent contends. It is perplexing, however, why there is a reference to the original email having been “forwarded” with the message “with my revisions …” and inserted paragraphs which appear to be written by the Applicant. I read the letter in full, but I found nothing in it which assisted me with the issue of ordinary residence. The letter is undoubtedly relevant to the relationship which existed and, if this relationship is to be interrogated, the provenance and circumstances of this letter would require to be investigated. Such investigation is not required, however, in the context of this preliminary issue as the letter does not assist in this regard.

20. The Respondent provided me with a self-generated document in the form of a chart entitled “[Applicant]’s Days in Ireland January 2023 – March 2024”.

21. This chart was prepared by the Respondent, and it added its own confusion. There were two iterations of it as the first was palpably inaccurate. I have some concerns about the date of alleged reconciliation (the Applicant denies any breakup) at the commencement of 2023 having regard to the date of the email with the letter referenced in the paragraph immediately before this one. The email(s) are dated 15th January 2023, and, on the Respondent’s case, this exercise was in the context of reconciliation. It would appear in consequence that any reconciliation was a matter of weeks earlier than the chart indicates. Otherwise, the chart indicates no journeys to Ireland by the Respondent in the first five months of 2023. This may be somewhat explained by the Applicant’s pregnancy and travel fears in this regard. However, this does not account for the January to March 2023 period when there was no travel.

There was some travel in the summer months of 2023, one visit in October 2023 and one further at the commencement of 2024, after the birth of the parties’ child. It must be stated that the averments of both parties were in conflict with the chart to some degree.

22. I received helpful and focussed submissions from both sides.

SUBMISSIONS

23. The Applicant’s submissions placed reliance on the judgment of Barrett J. in A v B [2021] IEHC 802 and in particular the dicta therein in relation to the meaning of “throughout” in section 196(3) of the 2010 Act both in the context of having two ordinary residences at the same time and the absence of a requirement of continuous residence in one of them, and in the context of appropriate statutory interpretation principles to be applied to the 2010 statute. Certain factual matters are highlighted as supportive of ordinary residence. I have considered all of these facts.

24. That the burden of proving that section 196(3) of the 2010 Act is satisfied is on the Applicant is emphasised by the Respondent. Additionally, the Respondent’s submissions referenced the Chubb principles (set out in detail below) and there is an analysis of the evidence adduced before me on affidavit and orally together with the documentation so proved. The deficits in the Applicant’s evidence in this regard are highlighted. The Respondent contends that “the Applicant tends to conflate the logistics of a long-distance relationship (…) and an ‘on the ground’ connection with the State.” There is a contention of documentary deficit on the part of the Applicant to support her claim and, in particular, to support even presence in the State. The lack of corroboration is highlighted and the fallibility of human memory in litigation is referenced, relying upon the dictum of Barrett J. in Wachman and Ors v. Barne Estate and Ors [2025] IEHC 491.

THE APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

25. Section 196(3) of the 2010 Act states:

“(3) The court shall only exercise its jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for an order for redress referred to in section 173 if both of the cohabitants concerned were ordinarily resident in the State throughout the one-year period prior to the end of their relationship, and either of the cohabitants—

(a) is domiciled in the State on the date on which the application is made, or

(b) is ordinarily resident in the State throughout the one-year period that ends on that date.” (underlining added)

26. In the context of the present application there are three issues which I must address, it being accepted that the Respondent’s pre-cessation of relationship circumstances satisfies the statutory requirement:

(A) What is the date of the end of the relationship of the parties? This is a question of fact to be determined on the evidence before me.

(B) Was the Applicant ordinarily resident in Ireland during this period?

(C) What is the meaning of “throughout” as used in the provision?

27. The legal connecting factor of “ordinary residence” was comprehensively considered by Murray J. in Chubb European Group SE v. The Health Insurance Authority [2020] IECA 91 at paragraphs 79 – 97. Certain principles emerge:

(a) ordinary residence is generally determined with reference to objective proof rather than subjective intention or state of mind.

(b) establishing where a person is ordinarily resident is a question of fact.

(c) relevant factors in construing the term are the ordinary meaning of the words and the legislative context in which the term is used. It should be stated that there is no statutory definition of the term specific to the 2010 Act.

(d) the general intention of the legislation in which the term is being used may assist in determining the meaning.

(e) the character and duration of residence are relevant.

(f) some degree of continuity and residence which is not casual and uncertain is appropriate.

(g) while a person may be ordinarily resident in more than one place, temporary presence is insufficient.

(h) the residence must be voluntary and there must be a degree of settled purpose.

(i) location to a jurisdiction for limited purpose may suffice. It is not necessary to show that a permanent home has been established.

(j) The dictum of Lord Scarman in R v Barnet London Borough Council exparte Shah [1983] 2 AC 309 at p. 343 G-H is cited with approval:

“Unless, therefore, it can be shown that the statutory framework or the legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning, I unhesitatingly subscribe to the view that ‘ordinarily resident’ refers to a man’s abode in a particular place or country which he has adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of his life for the time being, whether of short or long duration.”

28. Murray J. then enunciated seven matters to which regard ought to be had in determining the issue of “ordinary residence”:

“98. Gathering these cases together, it is clear that while the question of whether a person is ‘ordinarily resident’ in the State is one of fact, the legal meaning of the term is necessarily affected by the legislative context in which it appears. Subject of course to the implication of any particular legislative scheme, the meaning of those words should generally fall to be determined having regard to the following:

(i) The critical inquiry is directed to whether the subject has a settled and usual place of abode in the place in question. To that end, his or her residence there must be neither casual nor uncertain (Goertz).

(ii) In determining whether the subject has established such a residence, the focus is properly on the question of whether the person has adopted an abode in the jurisdiction for settled purposes and as part of the regular order of his life for the time being, whether of short or long duration. Education can comprise such a purpose (Shah).

(iii) That purpose, while settled, may be for a limited period, it may be a limited purpose and it may be contingent. All that is required is that there be a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled (Shah).

The fact that the person has subjectively determined that if certain eventualities come to pass they will change their residence, is similarly not determinative (Deutsche Bank v. Murtagh)

(iv) Absent legislative provision to the contrary, it is possible to be ordinarily resident in more than one place at the same time (Quinn).

(v)In a legislative context where public bodies have to reach determinations based upon where a person is ordinarily resident, the Court should incline towards a test which is objective and readily capable of application without a detailed inquiry into whether the subject has established a permanent home in the jurisdiction (Shah).

(vi) Proof of ordinary residence will depend more upon the evidence of matters susceptible of objective proof than upon evidence as to state of mind or subjective intention (Murtagh). While, necessarily, a consideration of the ‘purpose’ of a person’s presence in the State requires an understanding of their intention, this can be ascertained from the objective facts (Shah).

(vii) It is not correct to frame this test by reference to where a person has their ‘real home’ in the sense of where they have, on a long term basis, the centre of their social, economic or familial interests (Shah).”

29. The interpretation of the word “throughout” in section 196(3) was considered by Barrett J. in A v B [2021] IEHC 802 (Barrett J.):

“17. As to the meaning of the word “throughout” in s.196(3), the court would make three observations. (1) If it is (and it is) possible as a matter of Irish law to be ordinarily resident in more than one place it would seem to be a logical corollary of that fact that in any one year one can live “throughout” the year at both residences whilst flitting between them in accordance with the demands of life and one’s personal desires at any one time. (2) If the court is wrong in discerning this logical corollary to present, it considers that, consistent with DC v. DR [2015] IEHC 309, para.100, the Act of 2010 can be described as a remedial statute, which yields the conclusion, to echo McGuinness J. in Western Health Board v. KM [2002] 2 I.R. 493, that it should be construed as widely and liberally as can fairly be done. Bringing this standard to bear 16 yields the conclusion already reached as to the application, meaning, and scope of the word “throughout” as deployed in s.196(3)). (3) The court notes that s.193 of the Act of 2010 vests jurisdiction but also provides that the court shall exercise this jurisdiction if certain criteria are met. The decision of the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd v.

Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 indicates that if legislation can be interpreted in two ways, the way which allows a court to exercise jurisdiction and which facilitates a legal remedy is to be preferred.

Again, this suggests that the court should adopt a pragmatic approach to the meaning of “throughout” which allows for due mobility in people’s lives, whilst remaining true to the intention of the Oireachtas (an ever-important consideration).”

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

30. The evidence adduced in this matter was in many respects unsatisfactory. Much of it focussed on the nature of the relationship between the parties rather than the ordinary residence or ordinary residences of the Applicant. The Applicant adduced evidence pertaining to future plans when the parties’ child was born which event, in the context of an ongoing relationship between the parties, would obviously have required a dovetailing of lives. Much of the evidence was not in dispute rather the dispute rested on assertions of intention rather than objective facts. There was a surprising lack of corroboration of factual assertions. Of concern was the internal conflicts contained in the various Affidavits of both parties. By way of example, the Applicant averred to having spent the majority of her time in Ireland in the Spring of 2023 (Paragraph 15 of her Affidavit of the 28th of August 2024) but later indicated that she did not travel at this time due to fears concerning the early stages of her pregnancy. There is reference to not travelling close to the birth of the child due to wishing to have a family member with her for the birth and yet a “fit to fly” letter dated less than one calendar month prior to the birth is exhibited. The Applicant averred in most absolute terms to her role with the Respondent’s children, their care and the setting up of his new home in 2022/2023 but it became clear during the hearing that one of the Respondent’s children had no engagement with her at all and it also became clear that much of the purchasing of household and grocery items was done from her home in England. It was additionally perplexing that the Applicant issued proceedings at a time when she asserted that the parties were endeavouring to reconcile. The Applicant appeared to conflate the time spent by the parties together, whether in Ireland, England or elsewhere, with the issue of her ordinary residence in Ireland.

She gave oral testimony of the parties being “consistently in the same place”.

Without making any determination as to whether or not this was so, the parties being in the same place where that place was not Ireland, is of limited evidential value in the assessment of whether or not the Applicant was ordinarily resident in Ireland at the relevant time.

31. So far as the Respondent’s case is concerned, he produced a chart to demonstrate that the parties’ relationship had broken down until well into February 2023 (one of multiple breakups he contended had occurred) and yet his evidence was that the “My confession” email, dated the 15th of January 2023 came into being in the context of reconciliation. Indeed, text messages provided by the Applicant during the hearing were also indicative of a relationship subsisting in January 2023. However, the evidence does not support the Applicant coming to Ireland during this time.

Additionally, he deposed first to the Applicant having spent no more than 19 days in Ireland in 2023 and later to 33 days in Ireland. The chart produced at the hearing referenced 45 days although some of these may have been in 2024. Having heard from both of the parties, I find that the days set out on the chart are most likely broadly (if not precisely) accurate.

32. Additional to the above matters, there were many factual issues upon which the parties disagreed.

33. I find the Respondent’s evidence as to the date upon which the parties became aware of the Applicant’s pregnancy (mid-April 2023) more creditable than that of the Applicant. This is due to the actual date of birth of the child and due to the corroborative evidence as to when the parties were telling third parties (photographs of flowers and the letter to the Respondent’s then youngest child).

34. The qualitative nature of the parties’ living arrangements and, in particular, the objective circumstances of the Applicant which I find to be most persuasive include (and these were ultimately not in dispute):

• The Applicant had no bank accounts in the State.

• The parties had no joint bank accounts.

• There was no conjoining of funds consistent with a joint household in Ireland.

• The Applicant had no health insurance in the State and there was no evidence of her having or having attended any health care professional (dentist, optician etc.) in the State.

• The Applicant had no PPS number in the State.

• The Applicant averred to having had business clients in the State when she became self-employed in 2022 but no evidence of these was adduced.

• The Applicant was not registered to vote in the State.

• The Applicant did not own or rent a home in the State. This must be considered in light of the fact that the Respondent changed his rental accommodation in 2022 and, at that time, notwithstanding the relationship being in place since mid-2020, the lease on the Irish property was taken out in his sole name.

• The Applicant travelled from England to Ireland always with luggage and often with suitcases. This tends to suggest that she did not have any significant level of belongings in the Irish house.

• The parties may have had access to keys to the premises of the other, but this seems to have been in the context of leaving access to a key rather than having their own personal key to the premises concerned.

• I did not hear evidence of the Applicant’s family of origin or other friends visiting her alleged “home” in Ireland. There was evidence of very occasional visits by the Respondent’s family to England when they stayed in the Applicant’s house.

• The Applicant was not an account holder on any utilities in the State.

• The Applicant appears to have had a number of pets in her house in England.

• The Applicant had the use of a credit card facility of the Respondent, but she did not have a physical card, and her use was subject to his approval, and it became clear from the oral evidence that such usage was frequently done remotely when she was in England.

• The Applicant referred to an intention to purchase a joint property in Ireland (which the Respondent denied) but no corroboration was available in relation to this.

• I found it unconvincing that plans were being made for the paternal grandmother to be involved in childcare in Ireland. Given that the paternal grandmother was 79 years old at the time of the birth of the child, she would have been over 80 years at the date which the Applicant intended to return to work.

• Evidence that the Applicant disliked Ireland was not contradicted.

• The evidence did not support involvement in the lives of the Respondent’s marital children of the nature or extent averred to by the Applicant.

• The evidence of the Applicant was that she ceased work in the context of her pregnancy having regard to her previous medical difficulties. It would not appear that the time spent by her in Ireland increased having regard to her consequently reduced commitments.

35. While I am of the view that care must be taken to place too much weight on any one piece of evidence, I found the letter written by the Applicant to the Respondent’s then youngest daughter (which evidence she adduced) to be most informative. I have referenced it previously in this judgment –

“Tiny little thing will happen like sometimes the baby being at your Daddy’s house when you are there, but lots of the time the baby will be in [two alternative cities in England named] with the cats and me.”

36. I do believe that this letter written by the Applicant to the Respondent’s youngest child in May 2023 demonstrates and reflects the residential arrangements which had pertained throughout the relationship of the parties.

37. I received no evidence of a combined family life in either house by way of example family photographs, belongings stored in both houses, sports equipment and such like in both houses. Ample opportunity was afforded the Applicant to adduce such evidence, but this resulted in a focus on the relationship and its nature rather than the Applicant’s contact with Ireland.

38. Having considered all of the above, I must also clearly state that I have considered that January 2023 to March 2024 may not have been a typical time due to the Applicant’s pregnancy and it is entirely understandable that her travel habits were adjusted in that context. However, if informed by the prior years when the Applicant was not pregnant, it is clear she worked in England and her personal and business affairs were all there.

39. From the evidence I have read and heard, I conclude that the Applicant’s contact with Ireland was that she was in a relationship with a man who lived in Ireland (although having English business obligations) and who had family obligations in Ireland in the context of his marital children. The evidence is, I find, consistent with the Applicant visiting the Respondent in the context of their relationship and engaging in his life while so visiting. This engagement included the furtherance of her relationship with his children and organising some special events linked to birthdays or annual festive celebrations. I do not consider this to be consistent with ordinary residence.

40. The only other substantive evidence proffered related to purchases. The reality of online shopping is that it allows for remote purchasing. The evidence here clearly indicates a level of grocery and household online shopping by the Applicant in respect of the Respondent’s property. It appears that the Applicant primarily did this from her home in England for delivery to Ireland and the cost was discharged by the Respondent. There was evidence of a pattern of behaviour in this regard, but I cannot find that this occurred in the absolutist terms deposed to by the Applicant. I do not consider this demonstrative of the Applicant’s being ordinarily resident in Ireland (indeed, she would not appear to have even been present in Ireland in such context much of the time) but rather it seems that it was an element of the party’s relationship that the Applicant liked to involve herself in the Respondent’s day to day life in this manner.

41. Applying the factors set out by Murray J. in Chubb, I find as follows:

(i) The Applicant did not have a settled and usual place of abode in Ireland, nor did she reside in Ireland in a manner which was not casual or uncertain.

(ii) The Applicant had not adopted an abode in Ireland for settled purposes as part of the regular order of her life either of short or long duration.

(iii) The objective proofs in this case are not sufficient to discharge the burden of proof which rests with the Applicant.

I therefore find that the Applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ireland throughout the period January 2023 to March 2024.

42. Returning to the issues I must determine:

(A) What is the date of the end of the relationship of the parties? This is a question of fact to be determined on the evidence before me. Given the disparity between the parties as to the date of the ending of the relationship, I have considered the period from January 2023 to March 2024.

(B) Was the Applicant ordinarily resident in Ireland during this period? I find that she was not.

(C) What is the meaning of “throughout” as used in the provision?

I agree with the dictum of Barrett J. recited previously in this regard. I am of the view that it is correct that a person may have ordinary residence in more than one place and “throughout” does not require continuous living in one of these for the full year. However, the starting point is that the qualitative nature of the residence such as makes it “ordinary” must be satisfied. I do not find this to be satisfied on the evidence before me.

43. I will list this matter on a date convenient to Counsel to address any issues arising from my judgment.