Foreign Divorce Recognition and Residence: A Critical Analysis of H v H
Files in This Item:
|Foreign_Divorce_Recognition_and_Residence_-_A_Critical_Analysis_of_H_v_H.docx||53.54 kB||Microsoft Word||Download|
|Title:||Foreign Divorce Recognition and Residence: A Critical Analysis of H v H||Authors:||Ní Shúilleabháin, Máire||Permanent link:||http://hdl.handle.net/10197/8718||Date:||Apr-2017||Abstract:||In this article, it is argued that the dissenting judgment of O’Donnell J. is preferable to the approach adopted by the majority. However, insofar as the minority approach is anchored in English common law developments, it is submitted that O’Donnell J. ought to have given more emphasis to the House of Lords judgment in Indyka v Indyka and less to the earlier English Court of Appeal judgment in Travers v Holley. In following Travers v Holley, O’Donnell J. overstated the need for symmetry between jurisdiction and recognition criteria and ultimately arrived at a test which is logically indefensible.||Type of material:||Journal Article||Publisher:||Round Hall||Journal:||The Irish Jurist||Volume:||57||Start page:||162||End page:||174||Keywords:||Divorce legislation; Case law; Foreign divorces||Other versions:||http://www.irishjurist.com/previous.htm||Language:||en||Status of Item:||Peer reviewed|
|Appears in Collections:||Law Research Collection|
Show full item record
This item is available under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland. No item may be reproduced for commercial purposes. For other possible restrictions on use please refer to the publisher's URL where this is made available, or to notes contained in the item itself. Other terms may apply.