Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 102, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

193.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the Circuit Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court to hear and determine applications for orders for redress referred to in section 170 and orders for provision from the estates of deceased cohabitants under section 191.

(2) The District Court, and the Circuit Court on appeal from the District Court, have concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court to hear and determine applications for orders for redress referred to in section 170 and orders for provision from the estates of deceased cohabitants under section 191, except that—

(a) they do not have jurisdiction to make such an order for periodical payments at a rate greater than €500 per week,

(b) they do not have jurisdiction to make such an order in a matter in relation to which the High Court has made such an order, and

(c) the District Court does not have jurisdiction to make such an order in a matter in relation to which the Circuit Court has made such an order otherwise than on appeal from the District Court.

(3) The court shall only exercise its jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for an order for redress referred to in section 170 if both of the cohabitants concerned were ordinarily resident in the State throughout the one-year period prior to the end of their relationship, and either of the cohabitants—

(a) is domiciled in the State on the date on which the application is made, or

(b) is ordinarily resident in the State throughout the one-year period that ends on that date.

(4) The court shall only exercise its jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for an order for provision from the estate of a deceased cohabitant under section 191 if—

(a) in the case where the relationship concerned ended before the death of the deceased, each of the cohabitants concerned was ordinarily resident in the State throughout the one-year period prior to the end of their relationship and—

(i) each of the cohabitants concerned was ordinarily resident in the State throughout the one-year period that ended on the date of the death of the deceased,

(ii) on the date of the death of the deceased, the applicant was in receipt of periodical payments from the deceased, whether under an order made under section 172 or pursuant to a cohabitants' agreement or otherwise,

(iii) the applicant had, not later than 2 years after that relationship ended, made an application for an order under section 171, 172 or 184 and either—

(I) the proceedings were pending at the time of the death, or

(II) any such order made by the court had not yet been executed,

or

(iv) the applicant had, not later than 2 years after the relationship ended, made an application for an order under section 171, 172 or 184, the order was made, an application under section 170(6) was subsequently made in respect of that order and either—

(I) the proceedings were pending at the time of the death, or

(II) any such order made by the court under section 170(6) in favour of the applicant had not yet been executed,

and

(b) in any other case, each of the cohabitants concerned was ordinarily resident in the State throughout the one-year period that ended on the date of the death of the deceased.

(5) The jurisdiction conferred on the Circuit Court may be exercised by the judge of the circuit in which a party to the application ordinarily resides or carries on a business, profession or occupation.

(6) The Circuit Court shall transfer, to the High Court, proceedings on applications for orders for redress referred to in section 170, on application to it by a party to the application for the order concerned, if land to which the proceedings relate—

(a) has a rateable valuation that exceeds €254, or

(b) has not been given a rateable valuation or is the subject with other land of a rateable valuation, if the Circuit Court determines that the rateable valuation would exceed €254.

(7) An order made or act done in the course of the proceedings before a transfer under subsection (6) is valid unless discharged or varied by the High Court.".

This amendment inserts a new section 193 into the Bill. Its purpose is to rectify the omission from the Bill, as initiated, of detailed jurisdictional rules relating to proceedings under Part 15. The jurisdiction rules are similar to those in section 137 for civil partnership proceedings. It varies in a number of details which I will briefly set out.

Subsections (1) and (2) are standard.

Subsection (3) differs in that the jurisdiction conferred on the court is dependent not only on the domicile or ordinary residence of a party to proceedings on the date the proceedings are initiated, but on the couple having been ordinarily resident in the State for at least the year before the relationship ended. This is to ensure that not only does a party to the proceedings have a close connection with the State, but the relationship itself has a close relationship with the State. It may be easiest to understand if I give an example: a couple - their nationality is irrelevant - meet and live together in an intimate and committed relationship for an extended period in, say, Germany. Immediately on the end of the relationship one of them moves to Ireland and lives here for year. If we do not confine the jurisdiction of the court, the person who has moved to Ireland could, in theory, make an application for redress against the other person. This is although the relationship itself never had any connection with Ireland, neither of the parties has any past connection with the State, and the other person may never have lived here.

Subsection (3) insures against this by providing that the couple themselves must have been ordinarily resident in the State in the year prior to the ending of the relationship, as well as requiring that at least one of them have an ongoing connection with the State, either by their domicile or ordinary residence.

Subsection (4), which deals with applications for provision from the estate of a deceased cohabitant, is complex because full account is taken of the many situations in which such provision may be sought. In the case of cohabitants who are still in a relationship on the date of the death, the couple are required to have been ordinarily resident in the State in the year prior to the death, establishing the connection of the relationship with the State.

Where the relationship ended prior to the death, the couple are required to have been ordinarily resident in the State in the year prior to the end of the relationship, establishing the connection of the relationship with the State. The following requirements also apply: both of the couple should be ordinarily resident in the State for the year prior to the death; or the applicant was, on the date of the death, in receipt of periodical payments from the deceased; or the applicant had applied for an order for redress or a variation of such an order, which had not yet been heard; or the applicant had applied for an order for redress or a variation of such an order, and an order had been made but had not been executed on the date of death.

This is a complex set of provisions, but it ensures that a person can apply for redress only if both the relationship and the person have an ongoing connection with the State. It further safeguards cohabitant who was dependent on the deceased by ensuring that where the court had previously had jurisdiction in the case under subsection (3), the person remains entitled to apply for provision from the estate of the deceased.

Subsections (5) to (7) are standard. Other jurisdictional provisions relating to civil partnership proceedings are not mirrored as they deal with jurisdiction in the case of actions under Part 4 of the Bill dealing with shared home protection. As protections similar to those under Part 4 are not extended to cohabitants or qualified cohabitants, there is no requirement to add the relevant jurisdictional rules.

See this speech in context