By GERALDINE KENNEDY and CHRISTINE NEWMAN
THE MAN who was granted the first Irish divorce since the referendum is expected to seek a waiver of the marriage law to allow him to marry his partner.
This was confirmed to The Irish Times last night, following the High Court decision yesterday to grant the first order for the dissolution of marriage since the Constitution was amended in the 1995 divorce referendum.
The man, who is believed to be terminally ill and in his 60s, is expected to apply to the courts seeking an exemption to the legal requirement of three months notification of intention to marry.
This was one of the changes introduced in the Family Law Act 1995. It provided that any marriage in the State after August 1st last year would not be valid in civil law unless this requirement was met.
If one of the parties is unable to give three months notification, however, a person may apply to the court for an exemption and the court will decide if the marriage may proceed. Such an application may be made, under the Act, to the Family Circuit Court or the High Court. Both parties to the proposed marriage are Obliged to consent to the application in the district in which the marriage is to take place.
Meanwhile, the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mr Taylor, said last night that yesterday's decision was historic.
"There has never been a divorce jurisdiction since the foundation of the State. Prior to that the only remedy was the Private Act of Parliament. For a judicial remedy of divorce, you have to look as far back as Brehon Law," he stated.
Arguing that there was no delay by the Government in bringing forward the Family Law (Divorce) Bill, giving statutory footing to the constitutional amendment from the end of next month, Mr Taylor said a three-month lead-in period would allow the making of rules of court and other arrangements.
As divorce applications come on stream, the Minister added, there would be a particular need for information about family services which had been massively expanded since the establishment of his Department in 1993. He would be making a comprehensive guide to marriage-related services available in "the very near future".
In the judgment which took under 20 minutes, Mr Justice Barron said that he was satisfied the Constitution had been complied with.
The case was heard last Wednesday in camera. The judgment was also in private but copies were distributed afterwards to reporters outside the Four Courts. Any facts leading to possible identification of the couple were deleted from the judgment.
The judge said the husband and his wife lived close to each other without bitterness. There were three adult children from the marriage. The eldest, a son, was married with two daughters. The two younger daughters were unmarried.
Mr Justice Barron said evidence had been given by both husband and wife, the former being taken in the main on commission. From this evidence he was satisfied that the parties were married and following that, they lived in several countries until they settled in the State. They then separated, the husband going to live with another woman by whom he had had a daughter.
"While the wife does not wish to be divorced from her husband, she has made no effort to oppose these proceedings other than to ensure that proper provision should be made in accordance with article 41.3.2," he said.
The judge said this gave rise to" consideration as to whether this might amount to collusion. He was satisfied, he said, that there had been none and that the evidence before the court had been truthfully given.