182 / 336
any disabilities upon or make any discrimination be-
tween persons because one happens to be a clergyman
or a nun or a brother whether or not they profess any
religion belief, save where it is necessary to do so to im-
plement the guarantee of freedom of religion and con-
science. Consequently the scheme in question was un-
doubtedly repugnant to the Constitution as being in
disregard of Article 44 (2) (3) in that it created a dis-
crimination based on religious status.
The Supreme Court consequently unanimously dis-
missed the Appeal.
Molloy v Minister for Education and Attorney
General — Full Supreme Court per Walsh J.—
unreported —19 June 1975.
A husband who buys property in the name of his
wife and converts it into luxury flats is presumed
to have given it to her as an absolute gift.
The plaintiff wife married the defendant husband in
August, 1956. After the marriage, they lived for some
years in North Circular Road, Dublin, which had
been purchased by the husband in his name for £2,300.
The wife owned a grocery business in Thurles, which
she sold in 1956 for £3.105. The wife gave the husband
this sum of £3,105 plus a sum for arrears of rents plus
£1,130 received on the sale of the builder, these sums
were lodged in her name in the Educational Building
Society. Between 1958 and 1961, she took out three
endowment policies on her life, and when they matur-
ed, she paid the £1,173 which she received to the hus-
band. She also eventually obtained £402 from savings
certificates which she also gave to her husband. The
wife was also the owner of a one seventh interest in
a cinema in Thurles which yielded an annual income
of £550 which she gave to him each year until 1968.
From 1956 to 1968, the husband gave the wife a gen-
erous housekeeping allowance, paid all household bills,
and the expenses of the education of the children. He
opened a joint account end both husband and wife
drew from it.
In 1957, the husband bought two houses in Had-
dington Road in his name and converted them into
flats. In 1959, he bought a house in Northumberland
Road in his name for £2,450 and converted it into flats.
The house in North Circular Road, which had been
bought for £2,300, was sold in 1959 for £7,500, and
instead he bought a house in Merrion Road for £5,000,
and spent about £12,000 in altering and decorating it.
The family then went to reside there.
In July, 1967, he purchased another house in North-
umberland Road for £15,500 and had it conveyed to
the wife in her name. Most of the purchase money came
from the joint account. At the time, the premises were
let in 3 undecorated flats with a letting value of £20
per week. In an affidavit of April 1974, the husband
Stated that it never occurred to him that the wife
would c l f im the premises, or any rent from it. The
total cost of purchasing the house, including auctioneers
and solicitors fees, was £16,900. The cost of converting
the premises into luxury flatlets was a further £16,560,
financed by a bank overdraft to the husband, who had
a very prosperous fruit importing business; in order to
obtain accommodation he had to deliver to the Bank
of Ireland title deeds of the houses in Haddington
Road and of the first house in Northumberland Road.
By April, 1972, this account was overdrawn by £19,580.
As a result of the decisions of the banks to convert over-
drafts into term loans, this overdraft became a term
loan of £17,000 at interest of 16%. The annual gross
income of the converted rents rose from £6,380 in 1969
to £6,750 in 1970.
In 1972, the wife brought proceedings for a judicial
separation and for the custody of the children; this
was granted by the Judge, on account of the husband's
cruelty, and alimony was fixed at £75 per week. The
wife also claimed that she was the owner of all 4 houses
which the husband had bought. The Judge found that
the wife was entitled to all the interest in the second
house in Northumberland Road with its luxury flatlets,
but that the husband was the owner of all the other
premises; an order to this effect was made in May
1973. The husband however was restrained from sel-
ling the house in Merrion Road until he provided suit-
able alternative accommodation to be sanctioned by the
Court for the wife. The wife subsequently applied for an
account of the rates and profits derived from the house
in Northumberland Road between July 1967 and May
1973, and, by instruction the Examiner made up a
Certificate in June 1974, from which it appeared he
had received rents and profits during the prescribed
period of £30,500 of which £7,470 had been paid on
account, leaving a balance of £23,030. In October 1973,
the husband still owed the Bank £7,385. Throughout
the proceedings, the husband appeared in person.
Th e Judge said that it was a presumption of law
that wh en a person makes a purchase of property in
the name of his wife alone, it is intended as a gift to
her at once and there is no resulting trust. Th e same
principle applies when a husband expends his own
money on the property of his wife, even if the property
has been transferred by him to her. As long as they
are living happily together, husband and wife do not
contemplate disputes and all arrangements about dom-
estic expenditure and dealings in property are informal.
In the absence of a proved contract, the question
whether a husband has a claim for improvements car-
ried out to his wife's property should be solved by the
concept of resulting or constructive trust. Generally
speaking, a husband has no claim to be repaid the
amount spent on such property. The position however
appears to be here that the husband is entitled to
credit against the rents which he collected for the
amount, to be ascertained by the Examiner, which he
owes to the Bank of Ireland in connection with the
purchase and conversion of the premises, together with
the probable amount of interest payable. On the best
estimate that can be made of the interest, the total
for interest appears to be £8,176, and, when this is
added to the principal, the total amount is £15,560,
which will be credited to the husband.
The wife is now receiving £75 alimony per week, and
has a right to live in Merrion Road free of rent. She
receives about £7,000 in rents from the premises in
Northumberland Road. Accordingly the alimony will
be reduced to £10 per week.
(Heavey v Heavey — Kenny J. — unreported
— 20 December, 1974).
178