Foreign divorce pre-1986 not recognized if neither party domiciled in Ireland at divorce time.

THE SUPREME COURT

[Appeal No. 8/2010]

Denham C.J.

Hardiman J.

O’Donnell J.

Clarke J.

Dunne J.

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 38 OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT, 1936

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A CASE STATED TO THE SUPREME COURT

BETWEEN

M. H.

APPLICANT/APPELLANT

AND

G. H.

RESPONDENT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

NOTICE PARTY

Judgment of Ms. Justice Dunne delivered on the 3rd day of February, 2015

Introduction

On the 24th September, 1966 the applicant/appellant (“the appellant”) was married to the respondent in Ennis, County Clare. There

are six children of the marriage, the youngest of whom was born in 1974. The parties resided at the family home in County Clare on a

farm of some forty acres. Issues arose in the marriage between the appellant and the respondent and in July 1978 the appellant left

the respondent and the family home and went to reside in England. It was alleged by the appellant that she left because the

respondent had been violent towards her. In October 1979 she returned to the family home and there was an attempt at

reconciliation between the parties. The appellant alleges that she was subjected again to violence by the respondent; she left the

family home taking the youngest child with her and she went to reside in London. The respondent denies the allegations of violence

made against him.

On the 4th February, 1981 and while the appellant was resident in England she applied to Willesden County Court for a decree of

divorce. A decree of divorce nisi was made on the 22nd January, 1982 and the decree of divorce nisi was made final and absolute on

the 14th July, 1982. It appears from the decree absolute made on the 14th July, 1982 that no financial relief or provision was granted

by the court in making that order.

The appellant returned to Ireland in 2003 and worked as a carer. She subsequently moved back to Clare and on the 28th November,

2005 a family law civil bill was issued on her behalf seeking inter alia a declaration pursuant to s. 29(1)(c) of the Family Law Act 1995

that the decree of divorce granted by Willesden County Court in 1982 in respect of the marriage of the appellant and the respondent

is not entitled to recognition in the State. She also sought a declaration that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent

subsisted at the date of the hearing of the proceedings. In addition she sought a decree of divorce in respect of the marriage of the

appellant and the respondent pursuant to the provisions of s. 5(1) of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 together with ancillary relief.

A defence and counterclaim was duly filed and the proceedings came on for hearing before the Circuit Court on the 12th October,

2007. In the course of the hearing before the Circuit Court reference was made to a number of conflicting decisions of the High Court

in the cases of McG. v. W (No. 1) [2000] 1 I.R. 96, M.E.C. v. J.A.C. [2001] 2 I.R. 399 and D.T. v. F.L. [2002] 2 I.L.R.M. 152. The

learned Circuit Court judge followed the decision in McG. v. W and held that the English decree of divorce was entitled to recognition

in this jurisdiction on the basis that the appellant had been resident in England for a year at the time of the institution of the English

divorce proceedings. Accordingly the Circuit Court made a declaration that the decree of divorce made at Willesden County Court was

a valid divorce in this jurisdiction and dismissed the appellant’s claim for a divorce.

The appellant appealed that decision to the High Court and the Attorney General was given notice of the proceedings pursuant to s.

29(4) of the Family Law Act 1995 by order of the High Court made on the 30th November, 2008.

The appeal came on for hearing before the High Court (Edwards J.) on the 12th November, 2009. The appellant gave evidence and

was cross-examined in relation to her residence and domicile at the time of the institution of the proceedings for divorce in Willesden

County Court. The learned High Court judge made the following findings in the course of the hearing, namely, that the appellant was

not domiciled in England either at the time of the institution of the proceedings for divorce or at the time of the grant of the decree

absolute. He also found as a fact that she was resident in England for one year prior to the date of the proceedings.

Given those findings of fact, it was accepted by the learned High Court judge that the English decree of divorce would not be entitled

to recognition in this jurisdiction unless the State recognised the validity of a foreign divorce lawfully granted in a country where

neither party to the marriage in question was domiciled at the date of the institution of the divorce proceedings but where one party

was resident at that date. In view of the fact that there are conflicting High Court authorities on the applicable law, the learned High

Court judge considered that the issue relating to the recognition of foreign divorces was properly raised in the proceedings and that

an important question of law arose relating to that question. In all the circumstances he considered that it was appropriate that the

opinion of the Supreme Court be sought before determining the appeal and accordingly an order was made referring this matter to the

Supreme Court by way of consultative case stated seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court on the following questions:

“(1) Does the law of the State recognise the validity of a foreign divorce lawfully granted prior to the 2nd October,

1986 in a country where neither party to the marriage in question was domiciled at the date of the institution of the

divorce proceedings but where one party was resident on that date?

(2) If the answer to the first question is “Yes”, is it sufficient that the party resident in the country granting the

divorce is resident for the period required by the law of that country to ground its divorce jurisdiction?

(3) If the answer to second question is “No”, for what period must a party to the marriage in question have been

resident in the country granting the divorce in order to entitle such a foreign divorce to recognition in the State?”

The relevant statute law

The Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act 1986 abolished the dependent domicile of a married woman. It is provided in s. 1

of the Act as follows:

“1.— (1) From the commencement of this Act the domicile of a married woman shall be an independent domicile and

shall be determined by reference to the same factors as in the case of any other person capable of having an

independent domicile and, accordingly, the rule of law whereby upon marriage a woman acquires the domicile of her

husband and is during the subsistence of the marriage incapable of having any other domicile is hereby abolished.

(2) This section applies to the parties to every marriage, irrespective of where and under what law the marriage

takes place and irrespective of the domicile of the parties at the time of the marriage.”

Having provided for the abolition of a wife’s dependent domicile, s. 5 of the Act then went on to make provision in respect of the

recognition of foreign divorces in the following terms:

“5.— (1) For the rule of law that a divorce is recognised if granted in a country where both spouses are domiciled,

there is hereby substituted a rule that a divorce shall be recognised if granted in the country where either spouse is

domiciled.

(2) In relation to a country which has in matters of divorce two or more systems applying in different territorial

units, this section shall, without prejudice to subsection (3) of this section, have effect as if each territorial unit

were a separate country.

(3) A divorce granted in any of the following jurisdictions -

(a) England and Wales,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Northern Ireland,

(d) the Isle of Man,

(e) the Channel Islands,

shall be recognised if either spouse is domiciled in any of those jurisdictions.

(4) In a case where neither spouse is domiciled in the State, a divorce shall be recognised if, although not granted

in the country where either spouse is domiciled, it is recognised in the country or countries where the spouses are

domiciled.

(5) This section shall apply to a divorce granted after the commencement of this Act.

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect a ground on which a court may refuse to recognise a divorce, other than

such a ground related to the question whether a spouse is domiciled in a particular country, or whether the divorce

is recognised in a country where a spouse is domiciled.

(7) In this section –

‘divorce’ means divorce a vinculo matrimonii;

‘domiciled’ means domiciled at the date of the institution of the proceedings for divorce.”

As can be seen from the sections set out above, the provisions of the Act apply to a divorce granted after the commencement of the

Act and not to a divorce which was granted prior to the commencement of the Act.

Recognition of foreign divorces prior to the 1986 Act

The position in Ireland prior to the coming into force of Bunreacht na hÉireann was understood to be that a foreign divorce would be

recognised by the courts of this country if both spouses were domiciled within the jurisdiction of the court granting the decree at the

date of institution of the divorce proceedings. As the domicile of a wife was understood to be dependent upon that of her husband at

that time, in practical terms, this meant that a divorce was recognised if granted by the courts of the country in which the husband

was then domiciled. There was some uncertainty as to whether this position would continue following the introduction of Bunreacht

na hÉireann which, of course, then contained a ban on divorce. This issue was considered in a number of cases notably, Mayo-Perrott

v. Mayo-Perrott [1958] I.R. 336, Bank of Ireland v. Caffin [1971] I.R. 123, and Gaffney v. Gaffney [1975] I.R. 133. A passage from

the judgment of Walsh J. in the case of Gaffney v. Gaffney at page 150 illustrates the position:

“Judicial dissolution of marriage was not available in any part of Ireland until 1939. In that year the courts of Northern

Ireland were given power by statute to dissolve marriages. In this State no such judicial process is available.

Notwithstanding the absence of this particular jurisdiction in Irish courts, it was a principle of the system of private

international law recognised by the Irish courts that they would recognise decrees of dissolution of marriage granted by

the courts of another country where the parties were domiciled at the time. Domicile was recognised and accepted as the

foundation of the jurisdiction to dissolve marriage. In In re Lyons [1937] 72 I.L.T.R. 87 the Court of Appeal in Northern

Ireland refused to recognise a decree of divorce granted in the United States because, at the time of the commencement

of those proceedings which led to the dissolution of marriage, the parties were not domiciled within the jurisdiction of the

court which pronounced the decree. In the course of his judgment in Mayo-Perrott v. Mayo-Perrott [1958] I.R. 336,

Kingsmill Moore J. stated the Irish law to have been that the recognition of foreign divorces in Irish courts depended upon

establishing that the domicile of the parties was within the jurisdiction of the court pronouncing the decree. Recognition

and application of this principle of private international law was part of the common law in Ireland and, like Kingsmill Moore

J. in the Mayo-Perrott case and Mr. Justice Kenny in this case, I am satisfied that it is still part of our law. It follows,

therefore, that the Courts here do not recognise decrees of dissolution of marriage pronounced by foreign courts unless

the parties were domiciled within the jurisdiction of the foreign court in question. Insofar as the Courts of this country are

concerned, the marriage remains as valid and as subsisting in this country as it would have been but for the intervention

of the purported decree of dissolution.”

The matter was further considered by the Supreme Court in the case of T. v. T. [1983] I.R. 29. That case was originally a case

stated by the District Court to the High Court and was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court. Henchy J. at page 33 noted:

“The net point is still the same. At the time of the divorce, was the husband’s domicile Irish or British? If it was British,

the divorce qualifies for recognition in our Courts; if it was Irish, the divorce was given without jurisdiction and cannot be

acted on here: see the decision of this Court in Gaffney v. Gaffney.”

Thus it can be seen that by the early 1980s, the position in relation to the recognition of foreign divorces was understood to be firmly

and solely based on the domicile of the parties concerned.

An era of change

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.D. (otherwise C) v. M.C. [1985] I.R. 697 is of some interest. In that case it was

suggested that the common law approach to the recognition of a foreign divorce, which was by that stage well established as being

dependent upon the domicile of the parties, should be viewed as being not the only appropriate test to be applied and that an

alternative test should be considered, namely whether there was a real and substantial connection in existence between the parties

and the law of the country of the court granting the divorce. It was suggested that that test first identified in the decision of Indyka

v. Indyka [1969] 1 A.C. 33 should be applied in this jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected the suggestion that the Irish courts

should adopt that test stating, inter alia, that since the evidence before the Court did not show a real and substantial connection

between the parties and England where the divorce at issue had been granted that the Court would in those circumstances be

deciding a point of law upon theoretical facts, something which the Court declined to do. An observation made by Finlay C.J. is of

relevance. He stated at page 702 of the judgment as follows:

“It may well be, as was urged upon the Court, that anomalies exist in the law of domicile when applied to the recognition

of foreign divorces. It may well be that this area of the law, the reform of which has been recommended by the Law

Reform Commission, should receive statutory attention, but that is not a reason in itself for considering a test other than

the well established test of domicile which was the only test put forward in the High Court and the only test which arises

on the facts of this case.”

Finlay C.J. had made reference in the above passage to a recommendation by the Law Reform Commission in relation to the

recognition of foreign divorces. The Law Reform Commission had published a report in 1985 on, inter alia, the recognition of foreign

divorces. Its recommendations included the following:

“Where both spouses are habitually resident in the State at the date of the institution of the divorce proceedings, a

foreign divorce obtained by them should not be recognised at all in this country.”

To a large extent, the focus of the Law Reform Commission was on the concept of habitual residence. Even in the case of the

habitual residence of one of the spouses in a country where proceedings for divorce were instituted, its recommendation for

recognition was dependent upon the other spouse submitting to that jurisdiction. I have previously set out a number of sections from

the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act 1986 and as can be seen, the Oireachtas in enacting that legislation did not

adopt the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission but rather chose to maintain the concept of recognition based on domicile.

The abolition of dependent domicile of wives

Prior to the enactment of the 1986 Act, there was some doubt cast by Walsh J. in the course of his judgment in the case of Gaffney

on the concept of the dependent domicile of a wife. He noted at page 152 of the judgment:

“So far as the plaintiff was concerned, it was not suggested that her domicile during the subsistence of her marriage was

different from that of her husband. The law has been that during the subsistence of a marriage the wife's domicile remains

the same as, and changes with, that of her husband. For the purpose of this case it is proper to adopt this view,

although it is possible that some day it may be challenged on constitutional grounds in a case where the wife has never

physically left her domicile of origin while her deserting husband may have established a domicile in another jurisdiction.”

The tentative view expressed by Walsh J. in the case of Gaffney v. Gaffney found further expression in the Law Reform Commission’s

report on Domicile and Habitual Residence as Connecting Factors in the Conflict of Laws which was published in 1983. It

recommended that the domicile of dependency of married women should be abolished and, of course, this was subsequently brought

about by the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act 1986 which, in addition, made express provision for the rule that a

divorce shall be recognised if granted in a country where either spouse is domiciled as previously mentioned (see s. 5(1) of the 1986

Act).

Developments following the 1986 Act

The question of the dependent domicile of wives came to be considered again notwithstanding its abolition in the 1986 Act. Barr J.

considered the matter in two decisions of the High Court (C.M. v. T. M. [1987] I.R. 152 and C. M. v. T. M. (No. 2) [1992] 2 I.R. 52).

In the latter case, Barr J. at page 63 of his judgment stated:

“I would have no hesitation whatever in holding that the old rule was a relic of matrimonial female bondage which was

swept away by principles of equality before the law and equal rights in marriage as between men and women which are

enshrined in the Constitution – see in particular Article 40, ss. 1 and 3 and Article 41. It appears that the only possible

argument against such a conclusion is that it might create some uncertainty for spouses and others who may have been

affected by the rule in times past. It does not seem to me that that argument could possibly save an alleged rule of law

which is patently unconstitutional and can be unjust and unreal in its application. ...”

The views of Barr J. to the effect that the common law rule in respect of the dependent domicile of wives did not survive the

enactment of the Constitution came to be considered in the case of W. v. W. [1993] 2 I.R. 476 by the Supreme Court. That was a

case which was originally before the Circuit Court, having been the subject of an application by the plaintiff wife for a decree of

judicial separation and ancillary orders. Part of the defence was a claim by the defendant husband that the marriage between him and

the plaintiff was not valid because the wife had been married previously and had obtained a divorce in England from her first husband.

He contended that at the time of the divorce, the plaintiff wife was domiciled in Ireland and that as such the divorce was not entitled

to be recognised in this jurisdiction. The Circuit Court granted a decree of judicial separation and the defendant husband appealed to

the High Court. In the High Court it was found on the evidence that if the plaintiff had an independent domicile, she had acquired a

domicile of choice in England at the time of her first marriage. However, by the time she obtained the divorce in England she had

formed the intention of marrying the defendant in these proceedings and of remaining in Ireland. On that basis, assuming there was an

independent domicile she had resumed her domicile of origin in Ireland and consequently the divorce could not be recognised with the

consequent effects on her marriage in this jurisdiction. Both parties asked the High Court to state a case for the opinion of the

Supreme Court and one of those questions was as follows:

“Can the decision of Barr J. in C.M. v. T.M. [1991] I.L.R.M. 268, that the rule of the dependent domicile of married women

is unconstitutional be applied retrospectively so as to render void the marriage of the plaintiff to the defendant on the 7th

May, 1973?”

The Supreme Court held, inter alia, that the common law rule of dependent domicile of a married woman ceased to be part of Irish law

by virtue of Article 50 of the Constitution, being inconsistent with Article 40, s. 1 and did not survive the Constitution’s enactment. It

was further held that the common law rule to be applied to the period prior to the 2nd October, 1986, is that a divorce will be

recognised if granted by the court of a country in which either of the parties to the marriage was domiciled at the time of the

proceedings for divorce. The majority judgment in that case was delivered by Blayney J. and it would be useful to quote a passage

from his judgment in which he made two important observations at p. 505 of the judgment:

“But a new common law rule limiting the recognition of divorces to those granted in a country in which the husband was

domiciled would not be consistent with the Constitution. As in the case of the dependent domicile rule, it would offend

against Article 40, section 1. In order to avoid this, the rule would have to be extended further to include divorces

granted in the country in which the wife was domiciled. I see no alternative to this. The old rule has to go because it is

no longer appropriate to a situation where husband and wife have separate domiciles. Being a judge-made rule, it is for

this Court to decide the form of the rule by which it should be replaced. I agree with Egan J. that the rule should be that

our courts will recognise a divorce granted in a country in which either of the parties to the marriage was domiciled at the

time of the proceedings.

In my opinion, such recognition would be consistent with what the present policy of this Court should be. The Court may

not leave out of account the provisions of the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act 1986, which, having

abolished the rule as to the dependent domicile of a married woman, provided as follows in s. 5, sub-section 1: –

‘For the rule of law that a divorce is recognised if granted in a country where both spouses are domiciled, there is

hereby substituted a rule that a divorce shall be recognised if granted in the country where either spouse is

domiciled.’

While this provision applies only to divorces granted after the statute came into force on the 2nd October, 1986, it seems

to me that it would be wholly consistent with the statute that this Court, as a matter of public policy, should

independently modify the judge-made rule in order to do justice to the plaintiff. If the legislature considered it right that

the statutory abolition of the dependent domicile rule should require the enactment of s. 5, sub-s. 1, it seems eminently

reasonable that this Court, having decided that the dependent domicile rule did not survive the enactment of the

Constitution, should also modify on similar lines the rule in regard to the recognition of foreign divorces in order to enable

the plaintiff's divorce to be recognised.”

The two central points that emerge from that decision are of some importance in the overall context of this case, namely that a

common law rule being judge-made law is not immutable and that insofar as it may be modified it should be modified having regard to

public policy as may be discerned from relevant statute law or from constitutional amendments as may be appropriate.

Counsel on behalf of the appellant in their written submissions referred to Hogan and Whyte in J.M. Kelly: The Irish Constitution (4th

Ed.) at paragraph 7.6.125 in which the learned authors observed in relation to the judgment of Blayney J. as follows:

“While the majority decision may provoke unease among those who dislike the notion of judicial legislation – given the very

nebulous distinction between such activity eschewed by the Supreme Court in cases like L. v. L. and the more acceptable

additional refinement of common law rules such as in the instant case – it does have the merit of introducing a uniform

rule for the recognition of foreign divorces, so that one’s marital status is not affected one way or the other by the mere

happenstance of the date of the foreign divorce.”

It may have been thought that the issue of recognition of foreign divorces had been resolved by the enactment of the Domicile and

Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act in 1986 and by the subsequent decision in the case of W. v. W. However, matters did not end

there. “The next development was the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution Act 1995 which was approved by a Referendum held

on the 24th November, 1995, which removed the ban on divorce.

The next development was the amendment of the Constitution on the 24th November, 1995 which removed the ban on divorce.

Subsequently the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 came into force on the 27th February, 1997. It is not necessary to set out the

terms of the legislation or indeed the terms of the constitutional amendment but it is relevant to note the provisions of s. 39(1) of the

1996 Act which provides as follows:

“The court may grant a decree of divorce if, but only if, one of the following requirements is satisfied –

(a) either of the spouses concerned was domiciled in the State on the date of the institution of the proceedings

concerned,

(b) either of the spouses was ordinarily resident in the State throughout the period of one year ending on that

date.”

Accordingly it can be seen that the courts in this jurisdiction can now grant a divorce on the basis of either the domicile of either of

the spouses or the residence of either of the spouses in the State for a period of one year at the date of the institution of the

proceedings. Thus, the position then was, that having regard to the terms of the 1986 Act and bearing in mind the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of W. v. W., a foreign divorce would be recognised if granted in a country where either of the spouses was

domiciled at the date of institution of proceedings whereas in this jurisdiction, a divorce could be granted on the basis of either

residence or domicile.

Subsequent decisions on the recognition of foreign divorces

The issue of the recognition of foreign divorces was again raised in the case of McG. v. W. (No. 1) [2000] 1 I.R. 96 and in the

subsequent decision in M.E.C. v. J.A.C. [2001] 2 I.R. 399. The decision in McG v. W. was then considered in the subsequent decision

in the case of D.T. v. F.L. [2002] 2 I.L.R.M. 152. There is a conflict between the decisions in McG v. W. and M.E.C. v. J.A.C. and it is

the resolution of that conflict which is at the heart of the case stated herein. I now propose to consider those decisions in some

detail.

The circumstances in McG v. W. are necessary to describe. In 1998, the petitioner sought a decree of nullity of his marriage to the

respondent on the basis that he lacked capacity to marry at the time of his marriage because of a prior subsisting valid marriage to

the notice party. The petitioner had married the notice party in 1967 and they separated in 1978. In 1983 the notice party entered

into a new relationship in England with Mr. R. and she co-habited with him in England. In 1984, the petitioner issued divorce

proceedings in England relying on the notice party’s residence there for one year prior to the date of issue of the divorce proceedings.

It was never suggested that the notice party had been domiciled in England at that time. A decree absolute was made in February

1985 on foot of which the petitioner married the respondent on the 25th November, 1985 in London. The respondent was a British

citizen, domiciled in England. Subsequently, the notice party also married Mr. R.

At the hearing of the action the parties consented to the matter being dealt with as though it was an application pursuant to s. 29 of

the Family Law Act 1995 which enables the Court to grant a declaration as to the recognition within the State of a foreign divorce.

One of the issues in the background in that case was the fact that when the proceedings were before the Master of the High Court

for the purpose of fixing the time and mode of trial and determining the questions to be tried in the proceedings, the Master refused

to make the order and took the view that the English divorce was of no effect and that the parties had committed bigamy. He

directed that papers be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and as a result, An Garda Síochána interviewed a number of people

including the notice party.

McGuinness J. was satisfied that there was no doubt as to the validity of the divorce in English law and equally that the marriages of

the petitioner and respondent and of the notice party and Mr. R. were valid marriages in English law. The question was whether the

marriage between the petitioner and the respondent would be recognised in this jurisdiction. As the 1986 Act was prospective in its

application, McGuinness J. determined that the question at issue in the proceedings had to be determined in accordance with common

law principles.

McGuinness J. in the course of her judgment considered the developments in the law relating to divorce in this country, by the

passing of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution which permitted divorce and by the enactment of the Family Law (Divorce)

Act 1996. She also considered case law in relation to the recognition of foreign divorces and the changes brought about by the 1986

Act and she laid considerable emphasis on the decision of the Supreme Court in W. v. W. referred to above. She cited part of the

passage from the judgment of Blayney J. at page 505 of the report which I have set out above and went on to say at page 106 of

her judgment:

“It seems to me that in considering in the instant case ‘what the present policy of the court should be’ I ‘may not leave

out of account’ the provisions of the Act of 1996, which is the current major statutory provision in regard to divorce. It

does not seem to me that it would in reality be inconsistent with the Act of 1986 that this court ‘as a matter of public

policy should independently modify the judge-made rule in order to do justice’ to the three parties in this case.”

McGuinness J. also referred to the decision in the case of K.D. (C) v. M.C. [1985] I.R. 697 in which the Supreme Court refused to

recognise an English divorce on the test of “real and substantial connection” as described in Indyka v. Indyka [1969] 1 A.C. 33. In

that case the High Court found that the respondent husband was domiciled in Ireland at the time of the divorce (which was pre-1986)

and that the divorce could not be recognised. On appeal the Supreme Court concluded that as the evidence before the Court did not

show a real and substantial connection between the parties in England the Court would be deciding a point of law upon theoretical

facts and accordingly the appeal was not allowed. McGuinness J. commented on that judgment at page 107 as follows:

“It will be seen from this that the Supreme Court rejected the extension of the recognition rule on narrow grounds and on

the particular facts of the case. The case was also decided in a pre-1986 context where only the old rule of common

domicile applied; it was also, of course, prior to either W. v. W. [1993] 2 I.R. 476 or the recent constitutional and

statutory changes. In the present changed circumstances I do not think that this case can be taken as authority that no

possible extension of the recognition rules beyond the factor of domicile can be permitted.”

McGuiness J. went on to conclude as follows:

“In the light of the legal considerations set out above I consider that the decree of divorce granted by the English court

to the petitioner and the notice party on the 12th February, 1985, is entitled to recognition under Irish law. It follows

that both the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and the marriage between the notice party and Mr. R.

are valid marriages.”

There is an interesting footnote to the decision in that case in that an application was made by the Attorney General to be joined as

a notice party in those proceedings for the purpose of appealing the decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court. The Supreme

Court having considered the application concluded that as no appeal had been taken after the judgment and order in McG. v. W. was

given, there were no proceedings in which to join the Attorney General. (See [2000] 4 I.R. 1.)

The decision in McG. v. W. was not followed in the subsequent case of M.E.C. v. J.A.C. The background to that case is described in

the judgment of Kinlen J. There were in fact two sets of proceedings before the Court. M.E.C married the respondent J.A.C on 18th

May, 1968 in County Sligo. In 1968 the appellant and the respondent moved to England. The parties separated in October 1979 and

the appellant returned to Ireland. A divorce was obtained by the respondent in England on the 2nd May, 1980. The respondent then

married J.O.C., the notice party on the 29th September, 1989 in London. Proceedings were brought against the respondent by the

notice party in 1998 seeking a decree of judicial separation and this was granted to the notice party on the 4th May, 1999.

Subsequent to the decree of judicial separation, the appellant, M.E.C., issued a special summons seeking, inter alia, a declaration that

the divorce granted in London in 1980 was not entitled to recognition in Irish law on the basis that neither party was domiciled there

at the time. The Attorney General was joined to the proceedings and argued against the proposition that the Irish courts should

extend recognition to a decree of divorce granted by the courts of a country in which one or both of the spouses had been resident,

but not domiciled, prior to and at the time of the institution of the divorce proceedings. A preliminary issue was tried in the

proceedings as to whether or not the parties were in fact domiciled in England and the Court concluded that the evidence did not

establish that at the time of the divorce either of the two parties to those proceedings were domiciled in England. It then became

necessary to consider the question of whether the divorce obtained there was entitled to recognition on any basis other than

domicile.

In the course of his judgment, Kinlen J. examined the role of the courts in modifying common law rules.

He noted the approach that was taken by the Supreme Court in W. v. W. referred to above and commented as follows:

“The Act of 1986 introduced further changes and in particular gave statutory recognition to the rule in Armitage v.

Attorney General [1966] P. 135. In W. v. W. [1993] 2 I.R. 476 the Supreme Court found that the concept of dependant

domicile had not survived the coming into force of the Constitution. The court further found that this judicial ‘discovery’

necessitated a new rule as to the recognition of foreign divorces granted prior to the 2nd October, 1986. The rule

adopted by the Supreme Court was that a divorce would be recognised if granted by the courts of the country where

either spouse was domiciled at the time of the proceedings for divorce.”

Kinlen J. set out in extenso the submissions of the Attorney General to the effect that the decision in the case of McG. v. W. was

wrong. In essence it was submitted on behalf of the Attorney General in that case that it was undesirable that the rules regarding

recognition of foreign divorces should differ depending on the “rather arbitrary criterion of the date on which the Act of 1986 came

into force”. (p. 409). It was also contended on behalf of the Attorney General in that case that the matter was one best regulated by

the Oireachtas and that the conditions which justified radical development of the law in

W. v. W. did not exist in McG. v. W. or indeed in the case before Kinlen J. The Attorney General accepted that the rules regarding

recognition of foreign divorces were judge made but noted that the Oireachtas had intervened by virtue of the provisions of s. 5 of

the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act 1986 and by s. 30(3) of the Family Law Act 1995. Kinlen J. went on to observe

at p. 410:

“The application of the current domicile based recognition rules is also capable of producing hardship. Indeed the concept

of domicile is itself capable of creating problems. These problems are not capable of resolution by a simple modification of

the recognition rules – only a manifold modification of the recognition rules which caters for all the variations is

appropriate. Judicial intervention is not. The courts have traditionally refrained from intervening in these circles.”

Kinlen J. concluded in that case as follows:

“Each case must be determined on its own facts. The facts in this case differ slightly from G. McG. v. D.W. [2000] 1 I.R.

96. Moreover, the Attorney General did not appear in that case. Matters were argued in this court by him and indeed by

the other parties which were not ventilated in G. McG. v. D.W.

The mere fact that the Oireachtas is slow to deal with many problems in the matrimonial field does not in itself give

support to the court's jurisdiction to legislate. As far back as the 1950’s Ó Briain J., President of the Circuit Court (in

Attorney General v. Ballins (1964) Ir. Jur. 14) expressed the hope that the legislature would look at the whole question of

bigamy. Nothing has yet been done to remedy the defects identified.

If the grounds of recognition are retrospectively extended to include the residence of either party then that will have

serious implications for the way in which the State and many of its citizens have ordered their affairs. In an affidavit

sworn by Ms. O'Mahony of the Chief State Solicitor's office, she avers that the 1991 census showed that the marital

status of 6,103 residents was regulated by foreign divorces; by 1996 that number had increased to nearly 10,000. The

Registrar General and the Department of Foreign Affairs in the granting of nulla osta certificates work on domicile not by

residence.

The court is aware that there may well be a very substantial change in the whole law of recognition of foreign divorces in

the very near future. There will almost certainly be referenda on ‘Brussels II’ and the ‘Nice Agreements’. However, this

court cannot assume the result of referenda or prospective legislation.

Therefore, this court, being satisfied that neither party to the divorce granted by an English divorce court in respect of

the marriage between the applicant M.E.C. and the respondent J.A.C. was domiciled in England at the time, finds that this

divorce is not entitled to recognition within the State at this time.”

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant in this Court and indeed on behalf of the Attorney General that more weight should

be given to the judgment of Kinlen J. than the judgment of McGuinness J. given that the Attorney General was joined as a notice

party in the case of M.E.C. v. J.A.C.

For completeness, reference should be made to two further decisions. The first of those is the case of D.T. v. F.L. [2002] 2 I.L.R.M.

152. That was a decision of the High Court which concerned a Dutch divorce. The applicant and the respondent had married in Ireland

in 1980. Both parties were resident and domiciled in Ireland at that time. In 1987 the parties moved to the Netherlands but in 1992

marital difficulties arose and the applicant and children returned to Ireland. The applicant then sought a decree of judicial separation

on the 6th July, 2000. By way of response, the respondent pointed out that he had obtained a divorce on the 13th July, 1994 in the

Netherlands and he further claimed that that divorce was entitled to recognition in the State pursuant to the provisions of s. 29(1)(d)

or s. 29(1)(e) of the Family Law Act 1995. He claimed that he had acquired a domicile of choice in the Netherlands at the time the

divorce was granted and he further claimed that the divorce was entitled to recognition on the basis of residence in the Netherlands

as that was the basis upon which it had been granted in that jurisdiction. By virtue of that fact he said that the divorce was entitled

to recognition in the State. Morris P. concluded that the divorce was not entitled to recognition in the State and it was held that the

onus was on the respondent to prove that he had relinquished his domicile of origin and acquired a domicile of choice in the

Netherlands. It was concluded that the respondent was domiciled in Ireland on 13th July, 1994 and in the course of his judgment

Morris P. referred to the decision in McG. v. W. It is of interest to note that while the decision in McG. v. W. was considered in the

course of the case, it does not appear that the decision in the case of M.E.C. v. J.A.C. was cited in the course of the case although

that judgment was delivered in March of the same year as the judgment of Morris P.

Morris P. at p. 158 said as follows:

“Prior to McG v W [2000] 1 I.L.R.M. 107 a divorce based on residence as conferring a jurisdiction had not been held to be

entitled to recognition in this jurisdiction. In that case McGuinness J. had to consider a set of facts which included the

fact that a divorce was granted in England in 1985 based upon the residence of the relevant party. Of significance is the

fact that the divorce was granted prior to the coming into operation on the 2nd October, 1986 of the Domicile and

Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act 1986. McGuinness J. held that the laws governing recognition of foreign divorce in our

jurisdiction prior to 1986 were Common Law or Judge made and accordingly on the authority of W. v W. [1993] 2 I.R. 476;

[1993] I.L.R.M. 294 she recognised the court’s entitlement and indeed, obligation given certain circumstances, to change

such laws. On this basis and for the reasons stated in her judgment she changed the common law rules as to entitlement

to recognition holding that, in the instant case, the divorce based on the residence of the party in question in England

entitled the divorce to recognition in this jurisdiction. With that decision I am in respectful agreement. However, as I say

the divorce with which the learned Trial Judge had to deal was one granted prior to the 2nd October 1986. The divorce

with which I am concerned was granted after the coming into operation of the Act.

The question now is this: what effect, if any, did the passing of this Act have upon the court’s entitlement to alter or

vary the rules as to recognition and indeed whether these rules are still regulated by common law. It would follow that if

they are regulated by common law then in an appropriate case the court is entitled to alter them. If the rules are

regulated by statute then the court is not, as to do so would be a trespass upon the function of the legislature.”

He concluded at p. 159:

“I have no doubt however that since it was open to the court in McG v W (No. 1) [2000] 1 I.L.R.M. 107 to bring the

common law in line with current policy it was correct to do so. I believe that if there was a jurisdiction still vested in me I

should do so in this case. However, in my view the passing of the 1986 Act removes this jurisdiction from me.

Residence is not a basis for recognition under the Act.”

Clearly, Morris P. in considering the decision in McG. v. W. was of the view that it was appropriate to have altered the common law

rules in relation to the recognition of foreign divorces in the manner set out by McGuinness J. in the case of McG. v. W. but equally,

he was of the view that the enactment of the 1986 Act precluded him from relying on residence as a ground for recognition following

the introduction of that Act in respect of any divorce granted after the Act came into force. So far as the position post-1986 is

concerned, the statutory provisions govern the situation and clearly in those circumstances, the recognition of foreign divorces

granted after 1986 can only be determined in accordance with statutory provisions and those statutory provisions are clear in their

intent, namely, that a foreign divorce will only be recognised on the basis of domicile. It is unfortunate that Morris P. was not referred

to the decision of Kinlen J. in M.E.C. v. J.A.C. when he was considering this difficult question.

The final case to which reference might be made is a decision of the Supreme Court. That is the decision in the case of P.K. v. T.K.

[2002] 2 I.R. 186. That case concerned the recognition of a divorce granted in New York. The High Court had considered the question

as to whether or not the divorce was entitled to recognition based on domicile. The divorce in question in that case was one granted

in 1980. Having granted recognition to that divorce, the applicant who had brought proceedings in this jurisdiction seeking a decree of

divorce pursuant to the provisions of the 1996 Act, was not entitled to seek a divorce in this jurisdiction. She appealed and was

unsuccessful in her appeal. Reference was made in the course of submissions to a passage from the judgment of Fennelly J. in which

he observed:

“There was no real dispute at the hearing of the appeal as to the applicable legal principles. Both parties accepted that

the recognition of the New York decree depended entirely on whether the applicant had a New York domicile at that time.

Since the decision in W. v. W. [1993] 2 I.R. 476, domicile of one party is enough for recognition. No broader basis for

recognition of foreign divorces was advanced. In this connection, it has to be observed that parts of the judgment of the

trial judge quoted above appear to imply that it may be significant that the applicant approbated the decree. The present

case, must, however, in the existing state of the law, be decided exclusively by reference to the domicile of the applicant

at the time of the decree.”

In the course of submissions herein the respondent made the point in reliance on this case that that decision ought not to be relied

upon to support the conclusion that domicile is the only criteria for recognition of a foreign divorce and suggested that the last

sentence in the passage quoted above left open the possibility that the Court might consider a broader basis for recognition of foreign

divorces. On that last point, I think that it would be wrong to read that suggestion into that sentence. What was uppermost in the

mind of Fennelly J. in the course of that part of the judgment was the question of whether or not the concept of estoppel might have

a part to play in the question of recognition having regard to the fact that the applicant in those proceedings had participated in the

divorce proceedings in New York. Indeed Fennelly J. continued that passage by saying as follows:

“Walsh J., in Gaffney v. Gaffney [1975] I.R. 133 at p. 152 stated that, since recognition of divorce decrees of another

jurisdiction, depends on status which confers jurisdiction, there can be no place for rules based on estoppel which might

prevent a party giving evidence on that issue. That dictum has not been challenged in this case. The evidence to which

objection was taken in that case was evidence which the plaintiff had given to show that she had been coerced by

threats into presenting a divorce petition in England, a petition which on its face asserted that the plaintiff was domiciled

in England. . . . For my own part, I would not wish categorically to exclude the possibility that a person who had so acted

in relation to a decree of divorce granted by a foreign jurisdiction might be precluded from questioning its validity.

However, the issue has not been argued on this appeal and the facts would not appear to support even a generous

application of the doctrine of estoppel.”

I think it can be seen from the passage above that Fennelly J. was not making the suggestion that there might be an alternative basis

to domicile for recognising a decree of divorce granted in a jurisdiction other than a jurisdiction in which one of the parties to the

divorce was domiciled, as submitted on behalf of the respondent.

Other legal developments

It would also be appropriate to refer to European law in relation to the recognition of foreign divorces. The first relevant provision is

contained in Council Regulation 1347/2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters

and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses (Brussels II Regulation) which came into force on the 1st March,

2001. Subsequently it was replaced by Council Regulation EC No. 2201/2003 which is known as Brussels II bis which came into effect

on the 1st March, 2005. Article 3(1) of Brussels II bis contains the following provisions in relation to the general jurisdiction in relation

to divorce and other matters as follows:

“1. In matters relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, jurisdiction shall lie with the courts of the

Member State

(a) in whose territory:

– the spouses are habitually resident, or

– the spouses were last habitually resident, insofar as one of them still resides there, or

– the respondent is habitually resident, or

– in the event of a joint application, either of the spouses is habitually resident, or

– the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least a year immediately before the

application was made, or

– the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least six months immediately before

the application was made and is either a national of the Member State in question or, in the case of the

United Kingdom and Ireland, has his or her ‘domicile' there;

(b) of the nationality of both spouses or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, of the ‘domicile' of both

spouses.

2. For the purpose of this Regulation, ‘domicile' shall have the same meaning as it has under the legal systems of the

United Kingdom and Ireland.”

Article 21 of Brussels II bis is also of significance. It provides as follows:

“1. A judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure

being required.”

The provisions of Brussels II and Brussels II bis came to be considered in a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D.T. v. F.L.

[2009] 1 I.R. 434. The parties in that case were those involved in the earlier decision of the High Court in the case of D.T. v. F.L.

[2001] 2 I.L.R.M. 152, in which the judgment of Morris P. has previously been referred to. As pointed out earlier, the High Court

refused the declaration sought by the respondent in the earlier proceedings that the decree of divorce obtained in the Netherlands

should be recognised in the State. The High Court had held that the respondent was domiciled in Ireland and that residence was not

the basis for recognising the divorce obtained in the Netherlands. Having unsuccessfully appealed the matter to the Supreme Court,

the respondent commenced a further challenge to the applicant’s entitlement to seek a decree of judicial separation and sought

orders that the High Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction in respect of the claims of the applicant for any ancillary reliefs

relying on a number of EU regulations. The respondent sought to argue that the relevant EU regulations had retrospective effect.

Fennelly J. in giving the judgment of the Supreme Court said:

“It is a general principle of law, widely recognised in different systems of law that provisions intended to have a

retrospective effect must be clearly expressed so as to lead to that result. As the Court of Justice held, at para. 20 of its

judgment in Firma A. Racke v. Hauptzollamt Mainz . . . , cited by the applicant, ‘although in general the principle of legal

certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication, it may

exceptionally be otherwise where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those

concerned are duly respected’.” (Paragraph 73).

It has been argued on behalf of the respondent in these proceedings that by virtue of the changes brought about by the EU

regulations and the consequence that a decree of divorce granted in one Member State will be recognised in another Member State

without any special procedure being required that this is indicative of a clear policy as to the recognition of foreign divorces (save in

the case of Denmark which obtained a derogation from the regulations). It is on the basis of the developments in policy and relying on

the decision of McGuinness J. in the case of G. McG. v. W. that the respondent contends that the divorce obtained in the U.K. in this

case should be recognised in this jurisdiction.

Decision

Article 41.3 of the Constitution provides as follows:

“No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage

under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this

Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party

to the marriage so dissolved.”

At the heart of this case is the question as to what is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the

jurisdiction as framed in the question posed in the Consultative Case Stated, namely:

“Does the law of the State recognise the validity of a foreign divorce lawfully granted prior to the 2nd October, 1986 in a

country where neither party to the marriage in question was domiciled at the date of the institution of the divorce

proceedings but where one party was resident on that date?”

The question posed can only be answered following a consideration of the applicable common law rules and the conflicting judgments

of the High Court in the cases of McG. v. W. and M.E.C. v. J.A.C. A determination as to which of those judgments correctly reflects

the law in this jurisdiction requires to be made.

A number of observations can be made. First of all, the 1986 Act governs the recognition of foreign divorces from the 2nd October,

1986. The basis of such recognition is domicile. The provisions of Brussels II bis apply to divorces in EU states (except Denmark) in

respect of divorces subsequent to the 1st March, 2005 and provide that jurisdiction is based on habitual residence. It further provides

for recognition of a divorce without any special procedure being followed. Article 22 of Brussels II bis sets out the grounds for the

non-recognition of judgments relating to divorce. In addition to those provisions, the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution

provided at Article 41.2 for divorce and provided, inter alia, that a court may grant a dissolution of marriage where it is satisfied that

conditions prescribed by law are complied with. Those conditions include the provisions of the 1996 Act which permitted an

application for a divorce to be made where either of the spouses was domiciled in the State at the time of the institution of the

proceedings or where either of the spouses had been ordinarily resident in the State for a period of one year on that date.

The final statutory provisions to which I should refer at this point are the provisions as to jurisdiction for the grant of a divorce

contained in the Family Law Divorce Act 1996. As I have already said the provisions of the Family Law Divorce Act 1996 provide that

the jurisdiction in relation to divorce may be exercised if either of the spouses concerned was domiciled in the State on the date of

the institution of the proceedings or either of the spouses was ordinarily resident in the State throughout the period of one year

ending on the date of the institution of the proceedings. Thus, two bases are provided for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction to

grant a divorce.

It can be seen that here are a number of different criteria applicable to the recognition of foreign divorces in this jurisdiction. A

foreign divorce granted after the 2nd October, 1986 will be recognised in this jurisdiction provided that it was granted in the courts of

a state where one or other of the spouses was domiciled.

A divorce granted after the 1st March, 2001 but before the 1st March 2005 in an EU state will be recognised on the basis of habitual

residence in accordance with the terms of the Brussels II Regulation. A divorce granted after the 1st March, 2005 in an EU State will

be recognised on the basis of habitual residence in accordance with the provisions of Brussels II bis which came into force on that

date. (It should be remembered that in the case of Brussels II and Brussels II bis, Denmark obtained a derogation from the provisions

of the Council Regulation).

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of W. v. W. referred to above makes it clear that a foreign divorce will be recognised if

granted prior to the 2nd October 1986 in a state where one or other of the spouses was domiciled at the date of the institution of

the proceedings.

If the decision of the High Court in the case of McG. v. W. is correct then a foreign divorce would also be entitled to recognition on

the basis of residence if but only if the divorce in question was obtained prior to the 2nd October, 1986 as after that date, the

provisions of the 1986 Act are applicable.

McGuinness J. in the case of McG. v. W. considered that it was open to the Court to extend the common law rules in relation to

recognition of foreign divorces to provide for recognition on the basis of residence. She did so having regard to the decision in W. v.

W. which modified the then existing common law rule as to the dependent domicile of spouses. In that regard she referred to the

judgment of Blayney J. at page 505 which I have referred to above but which I think it would be helpful to refer to again. Blayney J.

had stated:

“In my opinion, such recognition would be consistent with what the present policy of this Court should be. The Court may

not leave out of account the provisions of the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act, 1986, which, having

abolished the rule as to the dependent domicile of a married woman, provided as follows in s. 5 sub-section (1) [he then

quotes the sub-section and continues]:

While this provision applies only to divorces granted after the statute came into force on the 2nd October, 1986, it seems to me that

it would be wholly consistent with the statute that this Court, as a matter of public policy, should independently modify the judge-

made rule in order to do justice to the plaintiff.”

McGuinness J. took the view that in deciding “what the present policy of the Court should be” she “may not leave out of account” the

provisions of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996. The words in quotation marks were taken by her from the judgment of Blayney J. in

W v. W. She added that in those circumstances it did not appear to her to be inconsistent with the 1986 Act that the Court should

independently modify the judge-made rule in order to do justice to the parties in the case before her.

With great respect, I have come to the conclusion that McGuinness J. in the case of McG. v. W. was not correct in identifying what

was the policy of the Court and its effect on the modification of the common law rules. In W v. W., Blayney J. first considered

whether the common law rule in relation to the recognition of foreign divorces could be modified. He concluded that the common law

rules were judge made laws and as such could be modified in accordance with “the current policy of the court”. In modifying the

common law rule, he stated that the court should consider the rule applicable at that time which was contained in the Act of 1986

and, having done so, he concluded that the common law rule applicable prior to the 2nd October 1986 should be modified in line with

the rule contained in the 1986 Act.

Thus, when the question of a further modification of the common law rule arose in the case of McG. v. W., it was inevitable that in

trying to discern the public policy underlying the common law rule consideration would be given to the changes brought about by the

introduction of divorce in this country as a result of the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution and the legislation giving effect to

that amendment. The Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 provides for jurisdiction to grant a divorce in this jurisdiction on the basis of

either residence or domicile. In the case of residence, it is necessary for one of the spouses to have been ordinarily resident in the

State throughout the period of one year ending on the date of institution of proceedings. No such residential requirement is necessary

in the case of a party domiciled in the State on the date of institution of the proceedings.

In considering what the present policy of the court was, it was appropriate for McGuinness J. to take into consideration the changes

brought about by the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996. Having said that, whilst it is undoubtedly the case that the Oireachtas provided

for the grant of divorce on two separate bases in the courts of this jurisdiction, the legislature did not at the same time vary or alter

the provisions of the Act of 1986 in relation to the recognition of foreign divorces. If the Oireachtas considered it appropriate to do

so, there was no reason why such a change could not have been introduced. Thus, it is my view that the policy of the court to be

derived from the current statutory provisions in relation to the recognition of foreign divorces must be found in the 1986 Act which

expressly provides for recognition of foreign divorces on the basis of domicile alone. If it were not for the 1986 Act, it would be open

to argue that public policy requires the recognition of foreign divorces either on the basis of one year’s residence or alternatively on

the basis of domicile. However, the 1986 Act is clear and is the law. For that reason, I find it difficult to see how a modification of the

common law rule to provide for recognition on the basis of residence could be said to be in line with the present statutory rule.

Contrast the position in McG. v. W. with the facts of W. v. W. In the latter case the question that arose was the status of the

concept of the dependent domicile of a wife prior to the enactment of the 1986 Act. The Act clearly demonstrated public policy by

abolishing the concept of dependent domicile. It can be seen that the approach of the Court in modifying the common law rule was

entirely consistent with the statutory policy apparent in the provisions of the Act of 1986. The approach in McG. v. W. relied on the

provisions of the 1996 Act to the exclusion of the existing and extant provisions of the Act of 1986 in relation to recognition. Nothing

in the Act of 1996 modifies or varies in any way the provisions of the Act of 1986 in relation to the recognition of foreign divorces. For

that reason, it seems to me that there was no basis for modifying the common law rule in the case of McG. v. W. The Act of 1986

expressly provides the ground upon which foreign divorces post-1986 can be recognised and I can see no basis upon which the courts

could adopt a different approach for recognition in respect of a foreign divorce granted prior to 1986. I think it goes without saying

that if a common law rule is to be modified in accordance with the present policy of the courts, such policy should be in line with and

not in conflict with public policy as demonstrated in legislation

The fact that the law in relation to the jurisdiction for granting a divorce in the State and the law in relation to the recognition of

foreign divorces use different criteria may appear to be inconsistent but that is not a reason for modifying the common law rule.

If the judgment in the case of McG. v. W. was correct, that would lead to the anomaly that foreign divorces granted prior to the 2nd

October, 1986 could be recognised on the basis of residence whilst those post-1986 could be recognised only on the basis of

domicile.

It could be argued that the appropriate course to take would be for the legislature to provide for the recognition of foreign divorces

on the basis of residence and that such a change would have the merit of being consistent with the terms upon which a divorce may

be granted in this jurisdiction and with EU provisions for recognition of foreign divorces. However, it is quintessentially a matter for the

Oireachtas to legislate and not for the courts. Kinlen J. in the course of his judgment in M.E.C. v. J.A.C. at page 412 observed:

“The mere fact that the Oireachtas is slow to deal with many problems in the matrimonial field does not in itself give

support to the court's jurisdiction to legislate.” Kinlen J. added at page 412:

“If the grounds of recognition are retrospectively extended to include the residence of either party then that will

have serious implications for the way in which the State and many of its citizens have ordered their affairs.”

Those remarks are just as valid today.

Conclusion

McG. v. W. sought to modify the common law rule in relation to recognition of foreign divorces in respect of the period prior to the Act

of 1986. The basis upon which a common law rule can be modified was identified in the decision of this Court in W. v. W., in which it

was recognised that common law rules are judge-made law and may be modified, if necessary, having regard to public policy. In that

case, the common law rule in relation to the dependent domicile of wives was modified to bring it into line with the statutory rule

provided for in the Act of 1986. It is undoubtedly the case that the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 enables divorces to be granted by

reason of residence in the State but if the legislature had wished to modify the position in relation to the recognition of foreign

divorces, it was open to the legislature to do so at that time or indeed at any subsequent time. No such change has been brought

about and in circumstances where the 1986 Act governs the recognition of foreign divorces on the basis of domicile, I fail to see how

it could be said that the present policy of the court is such that the common law rule applicable to foreign divorces granted prior to

the 2nd October 1986 may be modified. For that reason I regret to say that in my view, McG. v. W was not correctly decided.

It is unfortunately the case that the law in respect of the recognition of foreign divorces has developed in a way which provides for

different criteria for the recognition of foreign divorces depending on the happenstance of where and when the divorce was granted.

For example, the recognition of a divorce granted in New York will be based on the domicile of one of the parties; a divorce granted in

an EU State after the 1st March 2005 will be recognised on the basis of habitual residence in accordance with the provisions of

Brussels II bis which came into force on that date. Had the divorce at issue in this case been granted after the 1st March 2005, the

provisions of Brussels II bis would have applied and on the facts of this case it is difficult to see any basis which could have precluded

its recognition. Is there any justification for a system of recognition based on habitual residence for one group of people while for

another group recognition is based on domicile? Given the disparity between the different criteria for recognition of foreign divorces in

this country and the importance of permitting people to have clarity and uniformity in relation to their status, it seems to me that it is

desirable to reconsider the legislative position in relation to this difficult issue so that there could be, so far as is possible, a uniform

approach to the recognition of foreign divorces. After all, people are surely entitled to have certainty as to their marital status.

In conclusion, having regard to the circumstances of this case, I would answer the first question raised as follows:

1. “(1) Does the law of the State recognise the validity of a foreign divorce lawfully granted prior to the 2nd

October, 1986 in a country where neither party to the marriage in question was domiciled at the date of the

institution of the divorce proceedings but where one party was resident on that date?

No.

Having regard to that answer, I am of the view that it is not necessary to answer the second and third question.