User:MU1998/sandbox

THIS IS A CASE SUMMARY BY ME TO EDIT FURTHER, CITE AND INCLUDE RELEVANT HEADINGS- this is to establish that I have started the project

The parties in this case had been married in England and subsequently had returned to Ireland where the husband had obtained employment in a provincial town. They purchased a family home in the same town which is acknowledged to be jointly owned by them.

Difficulties arose in the marriage and the parties entered into a deed of separation which provided that the wife should continue to reside in the family home and to have custody of the children with the husband to have reasonable access to the children. Provisions were also made for the issue of maintenance, healthcare and mortgage repayments on the family home. The husband fulfilled these financial provisions of the seperation deed.

Since the seperation of the parties the husband has entered into a long term relationship with M.B. The husband had applied for and had been granted a foreign divorce and shortly after married M.B in the United States. The husband and M.B have continued to live together since.

The husband had lost his employment shortly after he separated from his wife. However, in later years the he had become President of an international undertaking and both he and his partner M.B owned homes in the United States and in Ireland. It was not in dispute that the husband had accumulated considerable wealth.

The applicant (wife) initiated divorce proceedings in Ireland in 1998. Mr. Justice Lavan in an ex-tempore judgment in the High Court issued on 21 November, 2000, ordered the respondent (husband) to transfer the entire family home to the applicant, increased the maintenance payments and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant a lump sum of £1,500,000.

The respondent appealed against the judgment on a number of grounds. The primary grounds of appeal were that the trial judge had failed to have sufficient regard to the terms of the separation agreement which was still in force under the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 and that the trial judge had failed to have regard to the parties’ twenty years of separation.

Mrs. Justice McGuinness (nem. diss.) in his Supreme Court ruling held that the trial judge had relied upon the principle of equality (which had been raised in the English case of White v White). However doubt was expressed as to whether the policy of equal division prevailed under common law. Division of matrimonial assets were now governed by statute with explicit mandatory guidelines. In this jurisdiction the ‘clean break’ solution was neither permissible nor possible. The overriding requirement was that of a fair outcome as set out in section 20(5) of the 1996 Act. The learned trial judge had failed to give reasons for the way he exercised his discretion in the light of the statutory guidelines.

In the circumstances the case was returned to the High Court so that the question of proper provision for the parties might be considered in the light of the mandatory provisions of the statute. The appeal was  allowed.

START OF TIPS:

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).

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.

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.