Man loses Supreme Court appeal over Irish divorce obtained by wife

A man has lost his Supreme Court bid to overturn a divorce granted in Ireland to his former wife.

He alleged it was irreconcilable with an earlier divorce obtained by him in another EU state before divorce was introduced in Ireland.

The 2012 divorce granted by the High Court in Dublin included orders for periodical payments, payment of a cash sum and succession rights. The earlier foreign divorce of 1994 contained no court orders for maintenance but incorporated an agreement between the parties providing for various payments.

The Supreme Court judgment comes after an 18 year battle in the Irish courts between the man, who has remarried here, and the woman. Both are Irish citizens.

The unanimous judgment of the five judge court addresses important issues concerning the effects of subsequent EU law developments on a party who got a divorce in another EU state before the Divorce Act of 1996 introduced divorce here.

In an earlier preliminary ruling, the Supreme Court ruled the foreign divorce obtained by the man in 1994 cannot be recognised here as a matter of Irish private international law and rejected his arguments otherwise.

That ruling cleared the way for the woman’s application for a divorce to proceed in the High Court and it granted the divorce in 2012.

The man lost an appeal over the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal but secured a further appeal to the Supreme Court on grounds the case raised an issue of general public importance.

That was whether subsequent provisions of EU treaties, including the Lisbon Treaty, meant the Irish courts, notwithstanding the finding the foreign divorce could not be recognised here, cannot or should not grant a decree of divorce which is inconsistent with a previous decree granted in another EU state.

Retrospective

Giving the recently published Supreme Court judgment, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne said the EU treaty provisions relied upon by the man do not have the effect of retrospectively affording recognition to the foreign divorce.

When the foreign divorce was granted in 1994, it could not be recognised here and nothing has happened since to change that position, she said. That meant, from the Irish courts point of view, there was no other irreconcilable divorce and therefore no bar to a divorce being granted here.

The introduction of EU measures for the recognition of divorce in each member state does not assist the man as those measures do not have retrospective effect, she said.

She also rejected arguments that granting a divorce here impeded the man’s exercise as an EU citizen of freedom of movement within the EU.

The couple married during the 1980s and had children who are now grown up. They lived for a time in another EU state, their relationship broke down while there and the woman returned to Ireland with the children.

She claimed, after she returned here, the man deprived her and the children of sufficient funds to keep them in any degree of comfort and they were reduced to claiming social welfare here.

During 1994, she took proceedings in the other EU state for maintenance against the man, who was then still living there but who later returned to Ireland.

At that time, she said she was confused and driven by the urgent need to get sufficient provision for herself and the children. The man denied there was ever any shortage of money.

Maintenance

Having obtained interim maintenance orders, the woman took no further steps in the foreign state proceedings but the man, with her co-operation, took steps leading to a divorce being granted later in 1994.

The foreign state said it could not make custody or maintenance orders in that divorce as the children were no longer resident there.

The man said a convention agreed between the couple and incorporated into the foreign divorce provided for him to make a IR£183 monthly payment as a contribution towards costs and care of the children’s upbringing, plus payment of school fees and a lump sum of some IR£12,747 into an account for the children’s future benefit.

In 2000, the woman initiated High Court proceedings for either a decree of judicial separation or divorce. That involved a number of preliminary rulings and appeals on issues unsuccessfully raised by the man.

In 2012 she got a decree of divorce and ancillary orders for maintenance.