Interesting Legal development

dermot_sheehan

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0223/dowset.html

Trying to find copy of judgement on the net. It appears according to the news report the court awarded damages for breach of constitutional rights, interesting development, your parents fail to care for you, you can sue them for breach of constitutional duties towards you.

hullaballoo

Wow, it's interesting that the payments are to be marked to the CPI. That's good news really, I wonder how the Dowes' feel about it. Presumably they're none too pleased.

I think it's a fair decision though.

Amazotheamazing

gabhain7 wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0223/dowset.html

Trying to find copy of judgement on the net. It appears according to the news report the court awarded damages for breach of constitutional rights, interesting development, your parents fail to care for you, you can sue them for breach of constitutional duties towards you.

Isn't that aleady established from various cases over provisions of wills, and in some cases I think it has been mentioned in relation to prop. estoppel?

dermot_sheehan

Amazotheamazing wrote:

Isn't that aleady established from various cases over provisions of wills, and in some cases I think it has been mentioned in relation to prop. estoppel?

Damages for breach of constitutional rights have been awarded in the past, e.g. Kennedy v. Ireland for illegal wiretaps, Murray v. CIE for conspiracy to violate freedom of association, first time that I know of it's been awarded for a parents failing their fundamental duties towards their children under article 41.

Never heard of it coming up before in a probate or property case, would be interested, any idea of the case names?

Victor

Amazotheamazing wrote:

Isn't that aleady established from various cases over provisions of wills, and in some cases I think it has been mentioned in relation to prop. estoppel?

This is under statute law. The idea behind the legislation was to stop family favouritism and in-fighting from passing from generation to generation. So something must be provided for each. Not necessarily equal, but balanced, e.g. a college education for one child, the house for the other. You can't disinheirt your children, but you can spend it all before they get it.

gabhain7 wrote:

Damages for breach of constitutional rights have been awarded in the past, e.g. Kennedy v. Ireland for illegal wiretaps, Murray v. CIE for conspiracy to violate freedom of association, first time that I know of it's been awarded for a parents failing their fundamental duties towards their children under article 41.

The named cases were of relations between (legal) strangers for their actions, not for in-action.

It odd that the piece is silent on any potential curency movements.

Amazotheamazing

gabhain7 wrote:

Damages for breach of constitutional rights have been awarded in the past, e.g. Kennedy v. Ireland for illegal wiretaps, Murray v. CIE for conspiracy to violate freedom of association, first time that I know of it's been awarded for a parents failing their fundamental duties towards their children under article 41.

Never heard of it coming up before in a probate or property case, would be interested, any idea of the case names?

Could dig out the case if you're really interested, my recollection is of a situation where a father withdrew his eldest son from school to help work on the family farm, eventually son marries, father and son's wife don't get on and father moves to prevent his son from inheriting the farm. Son takes case to prevent the father from disposing of the farm. Case is successful as the father had failed his son by removing him from the oppurtunity of education. Anyone else recall this case? Early 1980's.

Amazotheamazing

Victor wrote:

This is under statute law. The idea behind the legislation was to stop family favouritism and in-fighting from passing from generation to generation. So something must be provided for each. Not necessarily equal, but balanced, e.g. a college education for one child, the house for the other. You can't disinheirt your children, but you can spend it all before they get it.

The named cases were of relations between (legal) strangers for their actions, not for in-action.

It odd that the piece is silent on any potential curency movements.

Are you sure? Pretty sure you can't disinherit your spouse but it's possible to disinherit a child.

dermot_sheehan

Amazotheamazing wrote:

Could dig out the case if you're really interested, my recollection is of a situation where a father withdrew his eldest son from school to help work on the family farm, eventually son marries, father and son's wife don't get on and father moves to prevent his son from inheriting the farm. Son takes case to prevent the father from disposing of the farm. Case is successful as the father had failed his son by removing him from the oppurtunity of education. Anyone else recall this case? Early 1980's.

Ah, its a s. 117 case under the succession act 1965 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA27Y1965S117.html

Nothing too unsual about those, whats different about this case is its a child suing the parents (well AG on child's behalf), not to preserve something in the will, but for damages. It's almost like maintenance in a divorce proceeding.

Amazotheamazing

No it's not a s.117, the father was estopped from acting because of detrimental reliance on the sons part (iirc). In summation the Judge pretty much said the father had failed in his responsibilities to his son. Estoppel was ill-defined in an Irish context at the time, the Judge seemed to be drawing from various theories of what prop. estoppel might be when he gave his decision.

Don't think today's case is really that surprising, it's well recognised that parents have duties in relation to their children, today just re-enforces that.

milkytigerrr

It seems to be a big step forward for the rights of the child which are severely undernorished and ignored in Irish law. Children's rights and voices are moving centre stage (Secondary Student's Union, Ratemyteachers.ie). Bout time!

Victor

gabhain7 wrote:

Ah, its a s. 117 case under the succession act 1965 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA27Y1965S117.html

Restatement here: http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/slru/Restatement_Succession_Act_1965.pdf