A DUBLIN company director asked the High Court yesterday to strike out a claim for maintenance brought by the woman with whom he had cohabited.
It is believed to be the first "palimony" suit brought in Irish courts.
The woman, it is alleged, asked him to leave when she discovered he was having an affair.
Mr Colm Butterly of Butterly Business Park, Kilmore Road, Artane, alleged an action by Ms Bernadette Ennis, a dress designer, of Castleknock Park, Castleknock, Dublin, was scandalous, was calculated to embarrass him and was frivolous and vexatious.
Mr Butterly said he was advised that Ms Ennis's claim appeared to be a "palimony" suit which was unknown to Irish law and which Irish courts had refused to entertain on grounds of public policy, and rights under the Constitution.
He alleged Ms Ennis was maintaining the claim out of malice and to embarrass him publicly. It had no prospect of success and was "a calculated and brazen attempt" to extract further money from him by threatening to make public his private affairs.
Mr Michael McDowell SC, who with Mr David J. Hegarty (instructed by Paul Beausang) represented Mr Butterly, said Ms Ennis was claiming she broke up the relationship because of Mr Butterly's "infidelity" and he was obliged to pay her maintenance. She was putting herself in the position of a wife who had discovered "infidelity".
The Irish courts could not entertain such a claim. To create such a parallel would be to subvert completely the status of the institution of marriage and would be a direct attack on marriage itself.
Mr Justice Kelly reserved judgment.
The court was told Mr Butterly had been married with three children and lived separately from his wife since 1977.
Ms Ennis had also been married with one son and separated's since 1978.
Ms Ennis, in an affidavit claimed they met in 1984 and decided if and when legislation was passed enabling them to obtain dissolution of their marriages, they would marry each other.
From 1985 to 1993 they lived together with her son "to all intents and purposes as a perfectly happy family". In May 1993 she learned Mr Butterly was intermittently co-habiting with his wife and she broke off the relationship and asked him to leave.
Following this Ms Ennis said Mr Butterly withdrew his guarantees to her fashion design business and the company had to be liquidated. She started a new fashion design business.
During July, August and September, 1993, Mr Butterly "begged and cajoled" her and her immediate family to forgive him and to re-establish their relationship.
He again promised to marry her, bought her another "engagement" ring and begged her to give up work and live with him as might a wife, homemaker, house keeper, companion and career. He promised to be loyal and faithful and to guarantee her emotional and financial security.
Mr Butterly had contacted her parents, apologising for having hurt her, professed his love for her and asked them to use their influence.
"While I was very hurt by the unhappy event of May 1993", continued Ms Ennis, "I had been deeply in love with the defendant and perfectly happy throughout the period from 1984 onwards and in September 1993 I again agreed to marry".
She said Mr Butterly had wanted to go abroad and secure foreign divorces and marry but she had insisted they wait until it became legally possible to marry in Ireland. She also wanted, if possible, to get annulments of their marriages as she would have liked to marry in church.
She had given up work at Mr Butterly's prompting and became wholly dependent on him financially and trusted him fully.
In September 1994 she discovered Mr Butterly was having an intimate relationship with another woman and told him she would not under any circumstance marry him.
He left their home at her request but promising she would be financially secure. While he kept her secure for a short period he had failed to do so since.
Ms Ennis said she would not have given up her business, but for Mr Butterly's representations.
Mr Butterly, in an affidavit, said while it was true he had cohabited with Ms Ennis he never made any gift or in any way conferred any beneficial interest on her in respect of a Pounds 350,000 cheque he received. He never said. "This is our money and I will look after you".
He was advised Ms Ennis's claim did not confer any beneficial interest in any of his property. While he discharged some of her household expenses, it was done on a voluntary basis and conferred no legal rights or entitlements on Ms Ennis.
He denied he persuaded Ms Ennis to close down her business. On the contrary, she induced him to act as a guarantor for her business debts, which he did. The business became insolvent and he had discharged a Pounds 60,000 liability to a bank.
His relationship with Ms Ennis was ended.
In the course of the relationship he personally guaranteed the rent and was a guarantor for a clothing business which got into trading difficulties in 1991-92.
In 1993 Ms Ennis threatened him with litigation. He transferred a half share in an address' at Castleknock Park to Ms Ennis. He discharged his liability and made further payments of Pounds 15,000 to Ms Ennis.
There was no contract, as, claimed by Ms Ennis, between them. If there were such a contract it would be void as being contrary to public policy.
Mr Butterly claimed he had bought at least three and possibly four diamond rings for Ms Ennis but denied any ring was an engagement ring". He never attempted to persuade Ms Ennis to give up her business career and become dependent.
He never seriously contemplated the possibility of going abroad for a foreign divorce which he would consider to be a sham and he never seriously considered annulment as he had three children by his marriage.
Mr Butterly said he had given Ms Ennis gifts and advances of very considerable sums of money including a half share in the house which was bought for her, many advances to her companies and many gifts of jewellery. It was untrue that she "gave up" her business. She ran a succession of companies which were liquidated owing considerable debts to the Revenue.
Under Irish law no agreement to marry was actionable and he had not been guilty of actionable fraud or misrepresentations.
Mr Ciaran O'Loughlin SC, who with Mr Patrick McCann (instructed by Finbarr Cahill) appeared for Ms Ennis said his client had established a claim in contract and misrepresentation. In the absence of seeing what precisely was Ms Ennis's case it was not possible to determine that her claim was bound to fail.