Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness:

When we took the L&L case under Article 41.2, we made the argument in court that the woman should own half of the family home. We argued that the provisions of Article 41.2 relating to the value of a woman's work in the home should mean actual money or possession in the hand. We were met with a kind of cold dismay by the Supreme Court for suggesting that. Mr. Justice Barr had given us half of the family home in the High Court, but that was overturned completely by the Supreme Court. We can try to think of what would be a cause of action. Of course it would be possible for someone to say in a case that this is stated in the Constitution. Such a person would have to be sure that he or she was trying to claim something concrete - some actual benefit - rather than asking whether we are supporting carers properly. For instance, one can claim in equal pay cases that one is establishing whether it is equal pay for equal work and that kind of thing. One cannot make a sort of generalised claim. One has to find an actual plaintiff. When the Supreme Court is asked to decide whether an article is effective, it much prefers to do so on the basis of a specific case with a specific plaintiff. It does not really like vague referrals. I just do not see that happening.