Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not believe this amendment is necessary and it could give rise to some confusion. Section 53 deals with the issue of ordinary residence. In the context of the interaction between "domiciled" and "ordinarily resident", I am advised that one cannot state that "domiciled" encompasses "ordinarily resident" since it does not necessarily do so. The concepts are separate. To be domiciled in the State means having a fixed and permanent home here, crucially with the intention of remaining here either permanently or, at least, indefinitely, or, if absent, with the intention of returning here. One can be domiciled in the State while resident in another state. If a person is ordinarily resident in the State it means that he or she resides here, which is largely a factual determination based on his or her actual residence. It is possible to be domiciled in the State without been ordinarily resident here. It is possible to be ordinarily resident here without being domiciled here. They are different legal concepts, well worked out and defined in a plethora of judgments from the Irish courts and worked through in other common law jurisdictions as well.

Section 53(1)(a) provides two distinct alternatives. A debtor can be either domiciled in the State or ordinarily resident in the State or can have a place of business in the State pursuant to section 53(1)(a)(ii)(II). To add ordinarily resident to section 53(1)(a)(i) would make the provision and the possible alternatives unclear and unnecessarily introduce uncertainty. The provisions already reflect what I understand to be the Senator's intention. In the circumstances I cannot accept the Senator's amendment and I call on him to withdraw it.