User:MU021019/sandbox

T v T [2002] 3 IR 334; [2002] IESC 68; [2003] 1 ILRM 321

A Wikipedia article is written in a neutral point of view. Do not editorialize; you should support any claims by citing reputable sources. For an Irish Supreme Court case your article should consist of an accurate summary of the case including the background, the arguments in the case, and a clear explanation of the Court's decision and its significance.

The first section of an article is the lead. Its job is to provide a short summary and, crucially, communicate the significance of the topic. The lead should only be a sentence or two long. You must include a citation to at least one source from Westlaw IE when you describe the significance of the case. Review the video on Moodle that shows how to find sources using Westlaw IE. If you have trouble finding sources then please ask for help. Your lead should resemble:

Case name, [1992] IESC 1; [1992] 1 IR 1, was a Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held ...

(It is easiest to edit using the 'visual editor' rather than editing the source of the article. If you are not sure how to set your preferences please review the tutorial video on Moodle).

(You do not have to add the table of contents; Wikipedia does this automatically.)

Infobox, located at the right of the article in its own box (this is 'sub-heading 1')
''Every Irish Supreme Court case should use the infobox court case template. This can be the last part to add to your article. When you are in edit mode you can click on the infobox and select edit or you can use "edit source" to add information. If you have any trouble with the infobox post a message on the Moodle discussion forum asking for help.''

What belongs here:
''This section includes facts of the dispute, its history in lower courts, and relevant historical/political context. Subsections may include history, facts of the case, procedural history or lower courts (or even a subsection for each lower court, appropriately titled), and petition (for certiorari). You can cite the judgement when you are summarizing the facts of the case.''

Oral arguments can go at the end of this section if you choose the "Opinion of the Court" style (see full explanation below).

T v T [2002] IESC 68; [2002] 3 IR 334 was an Irish Supreme Court case wherein the Court dismissed the appeal by the applicant in the High Court case and upheld the High Courts ruling. This case involved a couple who were married in March of 1980. The applicant sought a Decree of Divorce under the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996. The respondent was not agreeable to the Decree of Divorce on religious grounds however it was accepted on her behalf that the constitutional and legal preconditions to the granting of such a divorce have been met and there was, in the result, no appeal from the grant of a decree of divorce by the High Court. The applicant, the husband, at the time of the High Court hearing was a solicitor, aged 52 years. The respondent, the wife, at the time of the High Court hearing was 48 years old. She was a member of the medical profession. There were three dependant children of the marriage. the parties both described the marriage as being "turbulent". The respondent accused the applicant of engaging in extra-material affairs to which the applicant did not deny. The applicant left the family home in 1994 and the parties were living apart since then. The applicant owns several properties, income received from these along with his taxable income amounted to an estimate of £14,000,000- £15,000,000. An issue that arose in the High Court case concerned the office block which the applicant purchased in 1996, two years after leaving the family home, for £4,300,000. Counsel for the applicant argued that 80% of the assets which were considered by he Court, were acquired by the applicant after the breakdown of the marriage. The award of a lump sum of £5 million to the respondent without payment of continuing maintenance did not introduce the concept of “a clean break” into Irish law; it provided for her financial security and reflected her greater contribution to the marriage.

It was argued that the High Court judge, Mr. Justice Lavan had been wrong in ordering a lump sum payment and had been in error in treating the date of the hearing as the appropriate time for the valuation of assets. The two provisions of the High Court order that were subject to the appeal were; 1. the applicant was to pay the respondent a lump sum of £5 million, and 2. that 55% of the benefits received from the applicant's life insurance policies to be paid to the respondent.

Holding of the Supreme Court
''This section should contain a summary of the Court's opinion as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Use this section for excerpts from the decision and precedents cited.''

''Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers.''

Supreme Court judges, Keane CJ, Denham J, Murray J and Fennelly J agreed in dismissing the appeal, while Murphy J dissented. Keane CJ held that the relevant Irish legislation precluded the ‘clean break’ principle however Irish law could accommodate those aspects of the principle which were clearly beneficial and it was not correct to say that the legislation went so far as to virtually prevent financial finality.

Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.

Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.

Infobox, located at the right of the article in its own box (this is 'sub-heading 1')
Every Irish Supreme Court case should use the infobox court case template. This can be the last part to add to your article. When you are in edit mode you can click on the infobox and select edit or you can use "edit source" to add information. If you have any trouble with the infobox post a message on the Moodle discussion forum asking for help.

What belongs here:
This section includes facts of the dispute, its history in lower courts, and relevant historical/political context. Subsections may include history, facts of the case, procedural history or lower courts (or even a subsection for each lower court, appropriately titled), and petition (for certiorari). You can cite the judgement when you are summarizing the facts of the case.

Oral arguments can go at the end of this section if you choose the "Opinion of the Court" style (see full explanation below).

Holding of the Supreme Court
This section should contain a summary of the Court's opinion as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Use this section for excerpts from the decision and precedents cited.

Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers.

Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.

Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.