55 / 196
The first reaction of the Irish practitioner might be
that this work is of little interest to him. Such would be
overstating the case as there are chapters in the text
directly relevant to the present matrimonial jurisdiction
of the Irish High Court, a jurisdiction that is being used
increasingly. For example, the chapters on jurisdiction,
nullity of marriage, judicial separation (divorce
a mensa
ct thoro)
and jactitation of marriage substantially repre-
sent the same jurisdiction that is vested in the Irish
High Court by the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1870. The
treatment of separation agreements is also relevant
here. Further, the present English and Irish law on
nullity of marriage is, for all extent and purposes, the
same. This is a fact which tends to be obscured, per-
haps as a result of the stigma we in this country attach
to the English legislation on divorce.
Griffith v Griffith
[ 1944] I.R. 35, a leading Irish case on nullity of mar-
raige, has been cited with approval in two recent
English cases;
Buckland v Buckland
[1967] 2 All E.R.
300, and
Szechter (otherwise Karsov) v Szechter
[1970]
3 All E.R. 905. In
Buckland v Buckland,
Scarman J.
went so far as to adopt the reasoning of Budd J. in
Griffith v Griffith,
when dealing with the effect of duress
on the validity of marriage ([1967] 2 All E.R. 300 at
p. 302 E-F). It should be stated, however, that a num-
ber of anomalies which at present exist in the Irish and
English law of nullity of marriage will cease in England
if the Nullity of Marriages Bill, at present before Parlia-
ment (Westminster), becomes law. There is no similar
legislation proposed in Ireland.
There are sections of this book which will have little
application to Irish circumstances. Article 41 of the
Constitution and its consequent effect on divorce and
the recognition of foreign divorces are the two instances
which immediately spring to mind. However, there are
sections of the text, while not having a counterpart in
the matrimonial jurisdiction of the Irish High Court,
may have a part to play in removing certain anomalies
that at present exist here. The present Irish jurisdiction
in matrimonial causes and related matters is in need of
a reappraisal and the recent work on the law commission
in England might provide us with some assistance. I am
thinking particularly of Chapter 8 of the text which
deals with "Wilful Neglect to Maintain" (pp. 119-127).
This might provide us with some guidelines in dealing
with the position of the deserted wife. Under Section 6
of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act, 1970,
an order on the ground of wilful neglect to maintain
may be made against one spouse on the application of
the other spouse. (An application is not restricted to
the case of a deserted wife.) Such an order can only be
made during the subsistence of the marriage. There is
no ceiling on the amount the court can order.
The position of the deserted wife at present repre-
sents one of the blind spots in our matrimonial juris-
diction. Under Section 7 of the Enforcement of Court
Orders Act, 1940, a deserted wife is entitled to a maxi-
mum award of £4 a week, irrespective of the number of
children who may be dependent for support on this
sum. This amount is totally inadequate. A recent
Private Member's Bill, the Enforcement of Court Orders
Bill, 1971, failed to pass its first reading in the Seanad
(see generally, Vol. 70, Seanad Debates, cc. 183-190).
This Bill proposed to give the High Court jurisdiction
to award a deserted wife up to two-thirds or one-half of
the husband's income, depending on whether there were
children of the marriage or not. The reason given by
the leader of the Government party in the Seanad for
opposing this Bill was that "the Government will be
introducing a Bill which covers the points [the position
of the deserted wife] raised" (ibid., c. 184). It will be
interesting to see how far the Government's Bill will
follow the precedent set by Section 6 of the Matrimonial
Proceedings and Property Act, 1970.
The text of "Tolstoy" is divided into three parts : (a)
the law of divorce and matrimonial causes; (b) practice
and procedure; and (c) costs and proceedings in the
magistrates courts. Mr. Registrar Kenworthy contri-
buted the section on practice and procedure. This part
contains a very useful explanation of the application of
the above provisions concerning wilful neglect to main-
tain (pp. 321-325). The first part of this text contains
most that will be of interest to the Irish practitioner. If
the two jurisdictions approximate at all, it is here that
one will find guidance.
The text is well written and at £3.90 represents a
very modest outlay for what is a standard work of
reference.
James O'Reilly
More Circuit Judges needed in Dublin
Too few judges and too little courtroom space are fac-
tors contributing seriously to delays of up to six months
—likely to become longer—in the hearing of Dublin
Circuit Court civil actions, according to the Council of
the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
Cases held up include personal injury claims, land-
lord and tenant applications and claims on contract
(such as hire purchase cases).
When a similar situation arose two years ago Judges
were transferred from country circuits to help clear a
backlog of cases then up to nine months in arrears.
A recent survey showed 519 civil cases waiting to be
dealt with in Dublin, about the same number as in last
October, indicating that the position is stagnant and
arrears are likely to mount, unless country Judges can
again be assigned to Dublin—or, preferably, additional
Judges appointed. Temporary assignment of Judges
from the country is not a solution to the problem, it
results in delays building up in the Courts at provincial
centres.
Criminal cases must, of course, take priority over
civil actions and the judicial time of the Dublin Circuit
Court is split approximately 84 per cent on criminal
work and 16 per cent on civil actions. The anticipated
increase of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court on the
civil side, and the fact that there is no prospect of a
decline in the number of criminal ca*es, will further
worsen the arrears position.
Courtroom accommodation is inadequate and there
is an urgent need for at least two additional Court-
rooms with ancillary facilities.
The Council of the Incorporated Law Society is
urging prompt action to ensure that delays are mini-
mised. It has also recommended the introduction of
fixed dates for the trial of actions, obviating the bringing
to Court of litigants, witnesses, solicitors and counsel—
at considerable expense—only to find their cases are
not reached. "The additional expense which this imposes
on the parties concerned must far exceed the addi-
tional salaries which would be paid from the Exchequer
if the number of Judges were increased", added a
Society spokesman.
55