The Gazette 1982

g a z e t t e

april 1982

Correspondence

(1) The English case is Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Duchess of Portland [ 1982] 1 A11 ER 784, which hinged on the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973. While this was a Revenue Case it is of further interest. It was held that the tax payer had not on the facts abandoned her English domicile of choice. (2) The Irish case was that of M. T. T. v. N. T. a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 1st April 1982 when the point for consideration was whether a U.K. decree of divorce obtained by the husband who lived and worked in Ireland for two years was recognizable in our Courts depended on whether his domicile was Irish or British. His domicile of origin was British and it was held that his residence in Ireland while employed there was not sufficient to rebut the presumption that his domicile of origin was British. The U.K. decree of divorce accordingly qualified for recognition in our Courts following the decision in Gaffney v. Gaffney [1975] I.R. 133. It appears that the husband had applied to the Cork District Court for a variation of an existing maintenance order under the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976, (the year 1964 is quoted erroneously in the Judgment it seems), contending that the absolute decree of divorce absolved him from any liability to continue to make payments to the wife. The District Justice accepted that proposition. The situation of the wife and the four children of the marriage is indeed an invidious one on the facts of this particular case, which must be considered as another example of the evil which divorce really is. The wisdom of the public policy of this State is illustrated in rejecting divorce as inimical to the welfare of spouses, the children, the family and society itself. Yours sincerely,

The Editor, Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society, Plackhall Place,

<"»<•»/>./o*> 2 2 / 4 / 82

Dublin 7.

Re: Change of Christian Name by Deed Poll. Dear Sir, Colleagues may be interested in an important development with regard to changes of name by Deed Poll. Many Solicitors will recall their inability to assist those clients expressing a desire to change their christian name (often in conjuntion with a change of surname) arising out of the refusal of the officials in the Central Office of the High Court to accept Deed Polls in respect of change of christian name on the grounds that the christian name cannot be changed. This Firm was recently engaged in such an application and the matter was referred to the President of the High Court, the Honourable Mr. Justice Finlay, and as a result thereof the President has made the following practice direction which he has permitted to be circulated to colleagues for their benefit: "Having considered submissions made on behalf of an applicant for the registration of a Deed Poll involving a change of surname and christian name as well, I have come to the conclusion that the practice heretofore in force prohibiting the change of christian name should be discontinued. It will therefore be permissible for persons by Deed Poll to change both christian name and surname provided that the other requirements already in force concerning such changes are complied with." The direction was made on the 1st. April 1982 and is undoubtedly an important clarification of the law on this matter.

Brendan Fitzgerald, 59 Offington Park, Sutton, Dublin 13.

Yours faithfully, Brian J. Matthews, Matthews & Co., Shamrock House,

The Editor, Gazette, Blackhall Place, Dublin 7. re: Judgment Papers in Circuit Court.

1/4/82

Dundrum, Dublin 14.

Dear Sir, I refer to the note on p. 3 9 of the Gazette for March 1982, which may require clarification. As I understand it, the composite form in which the form of Judgment by Default appears as a seperate document, with the full title of the Court and Action set out, is acceptable. The composite form where the Judgment appears as an addendum to the Cetificate of No Appearance and where the title to the action is set out only on the first page, in the Affidavit of debt, is not. There is no objection to several documents being bound together, or even printed on the same sheet of paper, but the Judgment, being an Order of the Court, must be capable of standing on its own when abstracted from the other documents contained in the form. This is the rule followed in this

The Editor, Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society, Blackhall Place,

30/4/82

Dublin 7.

Dear Sir, I refer to my letter published in the Gazette of March 1982 and in particular to the "Editorial Note" at foot of same. It may be of further interest that two further cases have come to my notice since publication of my letter, one an English one and another Irish one in relation to the matter of domicile. 92