The Gazette 1985

339 / 406

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND
G A Z E T T E
Vol. No. 79 No. 10 DECEMBER 1985
In this issue
^ Comment 327
Minutes of A.G.M 339
Experience of dealing with Solicitors amongst the
General Public 1985 349
^Presentation of Parchments 355
Executive Editor:
Editorial Board:
Advertising:
Printing:
Mary Buckley
William Earley, Chairman
John F. Buckley
Gary Byrne
Geraldine Clarke
Charles R. M. Meredith
Michael V. O'Mahony
Maxwell Sweeney
Liam O hOisin, Telephone 305236
Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford
The views expressed in this publication, save where other-
wise indicated, are the views of the contributors and not
necessarily the views of the Council of the Society.
The appearance of an advertisement in this publication
does not necessarily indicate approval by the Society for
the product or service advertised.
Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.
Comment . .
IT IS unfortunate that the Doctrine of Domicile should
have become the subject of an exchange of Bills by
Opposition and Government and to have entered the
'political' arena. It is more unfortunate that the Bills are
seen as moves in the complex board games of "divorce"
and "equality for women". Because of this there is a
danger that the essential distinction between the two
Bills will be lost. No doubt Fianna Fail was not unaware
of the likelihood of an imminent Government Bill and
might have introduced their bill as a 'pre-emptive' strike.
This should not, however, detract from the quality of
their measure which, in following the lead of the Law
Reform Commission, is broader and braver than that of
the Government.
The Gazette has previously expressed approval of
the conclusion and tentative recommendation of the
Law Reform Commission's Working Paper No. 10, that
the Doctrine of Domicile, as operated in the Common
Law countries, should be abolished. It is therefore dis-
appointing to find on one of the few occasions in which
legislation has been introduced following a Law Reform
Commission study that it is in danger of being emascul-
ated. A body such as the Commission, steeped in legal
tradition and learning, does not easily decide to recom-
mend even tentatively, the abolition of one of the dis-
tinctive creations of the Common Law. When it does
and particularly when the doctrine is as out of place in
the late 20th century as the horse-drawn tram, its rec-
ommendations should be welcomed and implemented.
The Minister for Justice, has during his term in office
demonstrated that he is no faint-hearted person. It is
therefore difficult to understand why he has not moved
decisively to rid us of this antiquated doctrine. Some-
times, Mr. Noonan, the Opposition may be right!
The concepts of the domicile of origin and the domi-
cile of choice are founded on the sentimental notion that
a person born in a particular country, who subsequently
moves around the world in the course of his life and
employment, necessarily intends to return to his place of
birth to spend his declining days. To convert such a
notion into a doctrine of law may have made sense when
men went out from Britain to 'govern' the Empire and
returned to the mother country when the last tour of
duty ended to spend their retirement in quiet spas and
watering places. In today's world, however, no such
notion may reasonably be justified, more especially
when it gives rise to such idiosyncratic situations and
uncertainties as the present law of domicile can.
As the Law Reform Commission noted in its Working
(continued on page 356)
327