101 / 250
g a z e t t e
april 1982
Correspondence
The Editor,
Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society,
Plackhall Place,
<"»<•»/>./o*>
Dublin 7.
2 2 / 4 / 82
Re: Change of Christian Name by Deed Poll.
Dear Sir,
Colleagues may be interested in an important
development with regard to changes of name by Deed
Poll. Many Solicitors will recall their inability to assist
those clients expressing a desire to change their christian
name (often in conjuntion with a change of surname)
arising out of the refusal of the officials in the Central
Office of the High Court to accept Deed Polls in respect of
change of christian name on the grounds that the christian
name cannot be changed.
This Firm was recently engaged in such an application
and the matter was referred to the President of the High
Court, the Honourable Mr. Justice Finlay, and as a result
thereof the President has made the following practice
direction which he has permitted to be circulated to
colleagues for their benefit:
"Having considered submissions made on behalf of an
applicant for the registration of a Deed Poll involving a
change of surname and christian name as well, I have
come to the conclusion that the practice heretofore in force
prohibiting the change of christian name should be
discontinued.
It will therefore be permissible for persons by Deed Poll
to change both christian name and surname provided that
the other requirements already in force concerning such
changes are complied with."
The direction was made on the 1st. April 1982 and is
undoubtedly an important clarification of the law on this
matter.
(1) The English case is
Inland
Revenue
Commissioners
v.
Duchess of Portland
[ 1982] 1 A11 ER
784, which hinged on the Domicile and Matrimonial
Proceedings Act 1973. While this was a Revenue Case it
is of further interest. It was held that the tax payer had not
on the facts abandoned her English domicile of choice.
(2) The Irish case was that of
M. T. T. v. N. T.
a judgment
of the Supreme Court delivered on 1st April 1982 when
the point for consideration was whether a U.K. decree of
divorce obtained by the husband who lived and worked in
Ireland for two years was recognizable in our Courts
depended on whether his domicile was Irish or British. His
domicile of origin was British and it was held that his
residence in Ireland while employed there was not
sufficient to rebut the presumption that his domicile of
origin was British. The U.K. decree of divorce accordingly
qualified for recognition in our Courts following the
decision in
Gaffney v. Gaffney
[1975] I.R. 133.
It appears that the husband had applied to the Cork
District Court for a variation of an existing maintenance
order under the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and
Children) Act
1976,
(the year
1964
is quoted erroneously
in the Judgment it seems), contending that the absolute
decree of divorce absolved him from any liability to
continue to make payments to the wife. The District
Justice accepted that proposition.
The situation of the wife and the four children of the
marriage is indeed an invidious one on the facts of this
particular case, which must be considered as another
example of the evil which divorce really is. The wisdom of
the public policy of this State is illustrated in rejecting
divorce as inimical to the welfare of spouses, the children,
the family and society itself.
Yours sincerely,
Brendan Fitzgerald,
59 Offington Park,
Sutton,
Dublin 13.
Yours faithfully,
Brian J. Matthews,
Matthews & Co.,
Shamrock House,
Dundrum,
Dublin 14.
The Editor,
Gazette,
Blackhall Place,
Dublin 7.
re: Judgment Papers in Circuit Court.
1/4/82
The Editor,
Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society,
Blackhall Place,
30/4/82
Dublin 7.
Dear Sir,
I refer to my letter published in the Gazette of March
1982 and in particular to the "Editorial Note" at foot of
same.
It may be of further interest that two further cases have
come to my notice since publication of my letter, one an
English one and another Irish one in relation to the matter
of domicile.
92
Dear Sir,
I refer to the note on p. 3 9 of the Gazette for March
1982, which may require clarification.
As I understand it, the composite form in which the
form of Judgment by Default appears as a seperate
document, with the full title of the Court and Action set
out, is acceptable. The composite form where the
Judgment appears as an addendum to the Cetificate of No
Appearance and where the title to the action is set out only
on the first page, in the Affidavit of debt, is not. There is no
objection to several documents being bound together, or
even printed on the same sheet of paper, but the Judgment,
being an Order of the Court, must be capable of standing
on its own when abstracted from the other documents
contained in the form. This is the rule followed in this