Protection Against Unilateral Dispositions of the Family Home - An Irish Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the property rights of spouses in Ireland continue to be held on the basis of title and are not automatically modified by marriage, some modifications to the separate property regime have been made. This article focuses, in particular, on the protection afforded to non-owning spouses against the unilateral disposition of the family home pursuant to the Family Home Protection Act 1976. Ireland is unusual in the common law world as the 1976 Act automatically confers non-owning spouses with a right to veto the conveyance of any interest in the family home. The article questions whether the 1976 Act has faded into irrelevance in the Ireland of 2013. Concluding that the legislation continues to play a vital role in the protection of spouses in Ireland, the article argues that similar legislation ought to be considered in other common law countries where the unilateral disposition of the family home is not subject to comprehensive legislative restrictions. In particular, the article focuses on the weaknesses in the protection afforded to non-owning spouses in the family home inter vivos in England and Wales and British Columbia, Canada. Arguing that legislative reform would considerably bolster the position of vulnerable, non-owning, spouses in both jurisdictions, the article concludes with a discussion of the key lessons to be learned from the Irish approach
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".