The High Court has adjourned for a week landmark legal proceedings by a lesbian couple to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland and to have the Revenue Commissioners treat them under tax law in the same way as a married couple.
The case brought by Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan was briefly mentioned before Mr Justice Liam McKechnie yesterday.
It was adjourned by the judge for a week, when it is expected an application for a hearing date later this year will be made.
In November 2004, the High Court granted leave for the case to be brought. Since then the sides have been preparing the action for hearing.
When granting leave, Mr Justice McKechnie said the case was not just about tax bands and the extent of allowances. The matters for consideration far transcended the two applicants; the institution of marriage would be at the core of the action, he said.
Ms Zappone and Ms Gilligan claim the refusal of the Revenue Commissioners to recognise them as a married couple in Irish law for tax purposes breaches their rights under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
They claim discrimination on the grounds of gender and/or sexual orientation and breaches of their rights to marry and to respect for their private and family life.
The case is against the Revenue Commissioners, Ireland and the Attorney General, with the Human Rights Commission, of which Ms Zappone is a member, as a notice party.
Among the orders sought by Ms Zappone and Ms Gilligan are orders compelling the State and Revenue Commissioners to recognise their Canadian marriage and to treat them as a married couple for the purposes of tax law. They are also seeking damages.
The case arose after Ms Zappone, a public-policy research consultant and Ms Gilligan, an academic, married in Canada on September 13th, 2003. They have been living together for 23 years and are joint owners of a home at Glenaraneen, Brittas, Co Dublin, and a holiday home at Kimego West, Cahersiveen, Co Kerry.
The Revenue Commissioners on July 1st, 2004, refused the couple's claim for the same tax allowances as a married couple. It argued that married couples relate only to "a husband" and "a wife" and that the Oxford English dictionary defined "husband" as a married man and "wife" as a married woman.