THE first application for a divorce since the 1995 divorce referendum, was made in the High Court yesterday, and judgment is expected to be given tomorrow.
The hearing went on for several hours before Mr Justice Barron, who decided when he sat early yesterday that it should be held in camera. It finished just after 4 p.m.
Lawyers for the husband, who is understood to be in his late 60s and to be terminally ill, and his wife, asked the judge to use his discretion for the hearing to be in private.
The husband, who lives in Dublin, is seeking the divorce because he wants to marry the woman with whom he has lived for some years.
Mr Gerard Durcan SC, for the husband, said the application was for a decree of the dissolution of marriage. He described it as an unusual application and the first of its kind.
Under Section 45 of the Courts Supplemental Provisions Act, 1961, the case could be heard in camera.
Mr Durcan said the application was under the provisions of Article 41.3 (2) of the Constitution seeking a decree of dissolution of a marriage.
Under Section 45 of the Courts Supplemental Provisions Act, the judge had a discretion in matrimonial cases to direct that a case be heard in camera.
Mr Durcan agreed with the judge that the Family Law Divorce Act was not yet in force. The case would be heard in camera if that Act was in force and would be treated the same as all other family law matters.
Given the nature of the case and the involvement of certain details about the parties marital history, it was appropriate for the case to be heard in camera and he would ask the judge to exercise his discretion and so hear the case.
Ms Inge Clissmau SC, for the wife, said her client felt this was a matrimonial matter.
Mr Justice Barron said somebody seemed to have wanted to give publicity to the matter. It was on the front page of The Irish Times and, presumably, of the other morning newspaper.
Ms Clissman said she had no knowledge of how it came to the attention of the press.
Mr Durcan said that was his position as well. He had made inquiries, and the publicity did not come from anybody on his side.
It was a source of distress that it had come into the public arena.
The judge said he proposed to hear the matter in camera. Mr Durcan asked if in those circumstances the judge would ask the press to leave.
Mr Justice Barron said that if the case was in camera, the press had no right to remain. The hearing of the case then went ahead.