Latest Legal Gravy Train & Gold Digger's Charter


Just as people woke up to find that they were effectively married to the banks on November 1st, 2008 the same wonderful democratic process is about to foisted on 243,600 cohabiting people in this country under the guise of the civil partnership bill.

Basically under this Bill if you shack up with someone for three years or more either party can chase the other for property, maintenance and pension rights through the courts see Section 170,171 of this

Muriel Walls, a family lawyer who was involved in the Law Reform Commission report says

So if you or your partner want to opt out of this automatic veil that drops over ye, both have to get legal advice and sign a “cohabitant agreement”… It’s a win win for the legal boys and gals! Brilliant just when the 'ol conveyancing was fooked too!

Needless to say in most democratic countries where cohabitation laws exist couples can be grown ups and make their own decision to opt in to a legal agreement, without the State imposing it on them, as is the case even in Ireland right now!


Couldn’t agree more. As a lawyer (!) I dislike this creeping legalisation of day to day life.




Will this be made retrospective do you think?


This has got to be the most absurd piece of legislation this idiot nation has ever passed.


It’s a lawyer’s charter, as noted by the English academic in the Times article. No wonder Walls is delighted with herself.

This is what happens when you allow vested interests to be involved in drawing up legislation.

Unfortunately such seems to be standard practice in Ireland.


Ah no - the state is much wiser than individual people. We can’t be trusted to run our own lives. And sure if we didn’t continue on with this trend of alienating individuals and communities from personal responsibility, then people might actually start believing that they should think for themselves! That wouldn’t be on - we would have anarchy for god’s sake!


Wouldn’t it be gas if this worked both ways, and living in your partners home gave you half their negative equity should you decide to fuck off after 3 years.

If they could have a claim to half of the equity, as per a seperation agreement, why shouldn’t you be able to spread the negative equity?


Maybe that’s what this is all about?! - It is easier to extract blood from two stones than one stone. XX


More to the point, people like Ms. Walls would find it much more difficult to earn their very nice living.

These aspirations to nanny-dom are laughable. The state can’t even carry out it’s most basic functions efficiently.

This place is a fucking bananna republic without the nice weather…or the tasty fruit.


“Lawyers involved in drawing up laws - Shocker!”

However, I do agree that to be covered both parties should enter into an agreement to be covered by the laws rather than having to opt out.


Does this include sharing a house with friends? How do they know they state of your relationship?


But I wonder will real cohabiters have to hang the bedsheets out to try and prove this, or will we have officers of the state ensconced in their bedrooms? :laughing:


Allowing lawyers to help with the* form* of legislation is not quite the same thing as allowing them to help determine it’s content. Not a particularly fine distinction I would have thought.

The former is of course necessary and the Civil Service has staff who are, or should be capable of filling the governments needs in this area. That is not what we are discussing here.

This situation appears to involve influence on the* content* of legislation by lawyers who are a) outside the machinery of government and b) have a vested interest in the matters being legislated on.

From the IT article:

So it seems Ms. Walls, who is in commercial practice in the field and thus stands to benefit directly was involved in drawing up the proposal to subsume a large new group of relationships within the ambit of Family Law.

You think that’s OK?

Being a person of goodwill I would hate to have to come to the conclusion that you were just defending your own.


Hang on, the Law Reform Commission presented a document to the government on the issue they didn’t draft up the proposed legislation.

I think you over estimate Ms Walls influence here.


So get receipts from all your hookers to record your lack of committment.


They may as well have drafted it since the proposed legislation is virtually identical with their report’s recommendations . Their executive summary can be found here; … t.258.html

I am probably being a bit unfair in singling Muriel out . Apparently a range of parties were canvassed for their views before the document was written . However McCann Fitzgerald’s views were particularly well represented.

The proposal as it stands is completely insane. Anyone that lives with someone else for a period of three years under whatever circumstances could find themselves in litigation. The potential for mischief is endless.


Interesting you take up the committment angle, so it’s ok for the state to decide your level of committment for you, by means of a ticking clock, even though you signed no contract?


I don’t disagree.

It would be interesting to hear the views/compare the submissions of those who were vocal propronents of such legislation


Balance of probabilities in the court. “He said, she said”
What happens for on again off again stuff?
People who hook up?