SC v BT (Approved) [2025] IEHC 547 (13 October 2025)

SC v BT (Approved) [2025] IEHC 547 (13 October 2025)

The Applicant failed to establish, on objective evidence, that she was ordinarily resident in Ireland throughout the one-year period prior to the end of the relationship as required by section 196(3) of the 2010 Act. Her presence in Ireland was limited, sporadic, and not sufficiently continuous or settled to meet the statutory threshold. The High Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to determine her application for redress under the Act.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 547
Parties
Applicant: S. C; Respondent: B. T
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Preliminary Motion / High Court Preliminary Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Ordinary Residence, Cohabitant Redress, Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, Jurisdictional Requirements, Maintenance, Guardianship
Family Law Jurisdiction Ordinary Residence Cohabitant Redress Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 Jurisdictional Requirements Maintenance Guardianship

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. C

Applicant

B. T

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Preliminary Motion / High Court Preliminary Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant was ordinarily resident in Ireland throughout the one-year period prior to the end of the relationship as required by section 196(3) of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine the Applicant's reliefs under the 2010 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant failed to establish, on objective evidence, that she was ordinarily resident in Ireland throughout the one-year period prior to the end of the relationship as required by section 196(3) of the 2010 Act. Her presence in Ireland was limited, sporadic, and not sufficiently continuous or settled to meet the statutory threshold. The High Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to determine her application for redress under the Act.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Declaration that the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to determine the reliefs sought under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010, as the Applicant was not ordinarily resident in the State throughout the one-year period prior to the end of the relationship.
  • Applicant's proceedings under the 2010 Act struck out.