The Gazette 1992

GAZETTE

DECEMBER 1992

o f f i c e rs in assessing the a m o u n t of

the c o n t r i b u t i o ns du e .

Th e se

guidelines provide t h a t, in

calculating the c o n t r i b u t i on d ue by

the liable relative, a c c o u nt will be

taken of h i s / h er p a r t i c u l ar financial

c i r c ums t a n c es a n d c omm i t me n t s.

In general, the c o n t r i b u t i on will be

b a s ed o n the net pay, less a p e r s o n al

allowance which is set at the rate of

the p e r s o n al allowance of b e n e f it or

assistance payable to the spouse, less

a n allowance for any children of

h i s / h e rs resident with h im or her

(again equivalent to the child

d e p e n d a nt allowance rate of the

benefit or assistance payable to the

spouse). An allowance for

a c c ommo d a t i on costs u p to a

m a x i m um of £75 per week is given.

Th is is reduced by 5 0% where the

p e r s on is living with a new p a r t n er

w h o is receiving i n c ome in excess of

£55 per week f r om emp l o yme n t. An

allowance is also given for any

mo r t g a ge p a yme n ts which are being

paid o n t he f o r mer family h ome

where the c l a i ma n t 's s p o u se is

residing. T h e r ema i n i ng a m o u nt is

d e t e rmi n ed to be the a p p r o p r i a te

c o n t r i b u t i o n. T h us the a m o u n t is

d e t e rmi n ed as follows:

Net pay

- Personal allowance

- Allowance for child(ren)

- A c c ommo d a t i on costs

- Mo r t g a ge p a yme n ts

- Assessable a m o u nt

Wh e re the c l a ima nt is already in

receipt of a ma i n t e n a n ce o r d er u n d er

the Family Law (Ma i n t e n a n ce of

Sp o u s es a nd Ch i l d r e n) Act, 1976 or

an order m a d e on f o ot of a

separation order, p a yme n ts m a d e

u n d er t h at order are to o f f s et in

wh o le or in p a rt any c o n t r i b u t i o ns

d u e a nd the c l a ima nt is liable to

t r a n s f er the a m o u n t of the o r d er to

the D e p a r t me nt or the He a l th

Bo a r d .

Th is provision now applies

to all ma i n t e n a n ce orders wh e t h er

m a d e b e f o re or a f t er Nov emb e r,

1990.

If t he c l a ima nt fails to

t r a n s f er the p a yme n ts m a d e u n d er

the ma i n t e n a n ce order as required,

the b e n e f it or allowance paid to t h at

p e r s on will be reduced by the

a m o u n t which s / h e wo u ld have been

liable to transfer.

Application to the District Court

If the liable relative fails or neglects

to ma k e the c o n t r i b u t i o n, the

D e p a r t me nt of Social Welfare or the

He a l th Bo a rd may a p p ly to the

District C o u rt for an o r d er directing

the liable relative to ma ke such a

c o n t r i b u t i o n .

1 0

It a p p e a rs t h at such

proceedings will n ot be held

camera.

On ce the c o u rt is satisfied

t h at the p e r s on b e f o re the c o u rt is

liable to ma i n t a in the c l a ima nt (or

the children), t h at s / h e h as failed or

neglected to ma ke the c o n t r i b u t i on

required a nd t h at s / h e was, at the

t ime of the h e a r i n g, able to

c o n t r i b u t e, the c o u rt shall fix the

a m o u n t of the c o n t r i b u t i on to be

m a d e a n d shall o r d er p a yme nt

thereof by way of such p a yme n ts as

t he c o u rt shall think proper. Ag a in

. . the legislation gives no

gu i dance as to how the court is

to assess the appropr i a te

c o n t r i b u t i o n"

the legislation gives n o g u i d a n ce as

to how the c o u rt is to assess the

a p p r o p r i a te c o n t r i b u t i o n.

Possible Defences

Th e re are several defences which may

be a d v a n c ed by a d e f e n d a nt in such

circumstances. Th e se include:

a) Inability to pay:

As stated above, there is

u n f o r t u n a t e ly n o legislative g u i d a n ce

as to h ow ability to pay is to be

assessed a n d n o g u a r a n t ee t h at the

c o u rt will a p p ly criteria similar to

t h o se applied by the D e p a r t me n t.

T h e Irish caselaw o n the assessment

of ma i n t e n a n ce between spouses is

not particularly clear a n d, in any

case, d i f f e r e nt c o n s i d e r a t i o ns may be

held to a p p ly where the proceedings

are between o ne s p o u se a nd the

D e p a r t me nt of Social Welfare. T h e

d i f f i c u l ty of o b t a i n i ng any kind of

judicial consistency in this area is a

wo r l dw i de o n e a n d h as led in s ome

j u r i s d i c t i o ns to the a d o p t i on of

p r e s ump t i ve b ut r e bu t t a b le s t a n d a r ds

for awards. T h e j u d ge c an only

d e p a rt f r om the s t a n d a rd award by

ma k i ng a written j u d g eme nt setting

out the reasons for d o i ng so.

b) Conduct of the parties:

It is not clear if defences such as

desertion or a du l t e ry by the c l a ima nt

or t h at the circumstances of the case

ma ke it r e p u g n a nt to justice to

require the liable relative to

c on t r i bu t e, which mi g ht act as a

d e f e n ce to a claim for ma i n t e n a n ce

inter partes,

would o p e r a te to defeat

the D e p a r t m e n t 's claim for a

c o n t r i b u t i on f r om a liable relative. In

National Assistance Board

-v-

WilkinsonJ

the Divisional C o u r t,

c on s i d e r i ng similar UK legislation,

held t h at a h u s b a nd was not liable

to c o n t r i b u te if his wife h a d been

guilty of a d u l t e ry or desertion.

However, the C o u rt of Ap p e al in

National Assistance Board

-v-

Parkes

held t h at the correct basis

for this decision was the p h r a se in

the UK legislation which required

the c o u rt to " h a ve regard to all the

c i r c ums t a n c e s " .

T h e Irish

legislation c o n t a i ns n o such p h r a se

a n d the old Irish case of

McEvoy

-v-

Guardians of the Kilkenny Union,

which interprets the Irish P o or Law

provisions f r om which o ur current

legislation is derived, is a u t h o r i ty for

the p r o p o s i t i on t h at liability to

ma i n t a in is a b s o l u te a nd t h at the

b e h a v i o ur of the s p o u se is irrelevant.

c) Agreements between the parties:

O n e s p o u se may agree to transfer

p r o p e r ty to the o t h er o n the basis

t h at n o ma i n t e n a n ce or only a low

ma i n t e n a n ce p a yme nt is to be ma d e.

It is well established t h at o ne p a r ty

c a n n ot c on t r a ct o ut of h i s / h er right

to ma i n t e n a n c e .

1 6

No n e t h e l e ss s h o u ld

a s u b s e q u e nt a p p l i c a t i on for

ma i n t e n a n ce be ma d e, t he c o u r ts

may take i n to a c c o u nt all the

relevant facts including any p r o p e r ty

transfers.

Will such an a g r e eme nt

be taken into a c c o u nt in deciding

wh e t h er a s p o u se is liable to

c o n t r i b u t e? T h e UK a u t h o r i t i es are

u n a n i mo us t h at an a g r e eme nt

between the parties will not relieve a

s p o u se f r om liability to ma i n t a in

a l t h o u g h, u n d er the UK legislation,

it can be taken into a c c o u nt in

deciding the a p p r o p r i a te amo u n t .

1 8

388