Matrimonial Home Bill, 1993, Re [1994] IESC 5 (24th January, 1994)

Matrimonial Home Bill, 1993, Re [1994] IESC 5 (24th January, 1994)

The Bill's universal and retrospective imposition of joint ownership on all matrimonial homes, regardless of prior joint decisions by spouses, constitutes an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the inalienable authority of the family as protected by Article 41 of the Constitution. The Bill fails to distinguish between cases where intervention is justified and those where spouses have freely exercised their authority, and thus represents a failure by the State to protect the authority of the family.

Citation
[1994] IESC 5
Parties
Referring Authority: President of Ireland (Mary Robinson); Respondent: Attorney General; Applicant: Assigned Counsel (Article 26)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Article 26 Reference (constitutionality of Bill) / Supreme Court Decision on Presidential Reference
Outcome
Bill declared repugnant to the Constitution
Legal Topics
Presumption of Constitutionality, Family Authority, Joint Ownership of Matrimonial Home, State Intervention in Family Affairs
Constitutional Law Family Law Property Law Presumption of Constitutionality Family Authority Joint Ownership of Matrimonial Home State Intervention in Family Affairs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

President of Ireland (Mary Robinson)

Referring Authority

Attorney General

Respondent

Assigned Counsel (Article 26)

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Article 26 Reference (constitutionality of Bill) / Supreme Court Decision on Presidential Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Matrimonial Home Bill, 1993 is repugnant to Article 41 of the Constitution regarding the authority and rights of the family
  2. 2 Whether the Bill's mandatory imposition of joint ownership of matrimonial homes constitutes an impermissible State intrusion into family authority

Ratio Decidendi

The Bill's universal and retrospective imposition of joint ownership on all matrimonial homes, regardless of prior joint decisions by spouses, constitutes an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the inalienable authority of the family as protected by Article 41 of the Constitution. The Bill fails to distinguish between cases where intervention is justified and those where spouses have freely exercised their authority, and thus represents a failure by the State to protect the authority of the family.

Court Disposition

Bill declared repugnant to the Constitution

Orders

  • President to be informed that the Matrimonial Home Bill, 1993 is repugnant to Article 41 of the Constitution and cannot be signed into law.