The High Court said it would grant a divorce and ordered that the spouses’ family home be sold and the proceeds divided equally unless they agree by 24 March 2024 that one will buy out the other’s half share.
In a judgment delivered on 26 January 2024, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the requirements for divorce under section 5(1) of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 had been established. Both spouses had asked for a divorce. Although the applicant said a normal marital relationship had ended in June 2020, the judge accepted the respondent’s evidence that they had lived separately and apart for at least two years before proceedings began on 2 July 2021. He said the question about the applicant’s account was therefore moot.
The spouses, both in their 30s, continued to live in the same residence but, the judge said, led parallel lives and avoided each other. They had no children. The respondent’s evidence was that the marriage had quickly come to an effective end; the judge accepted that account and found no basis for further financial provision between them, apart from the family home.
The applicant said she had contributed €104,632.27 towards building the home. After adjustments, the judge calculated her contribution at €59,632.27. He assessed the respondent’s contribution at €235,795.01, about 3.95 times as much. Despite the disparity, he considered an equal division of sale proceeds appropriate because the property was the family home. The spouses were given until 24 March 2024 to reach an agreement and raise the funds for one to transfer half the estimated sale proceeds to the other in exchange for sole ownership. If they could not agree by then, the court would order a sale and equal division. The judgment records the intended order; it does not state that a sale had already taken place.
The judge also rejected claims that the respondent lacked credibility, had downplayed the applicant’s significant role in his businesses, or had established an extravagant lifestyle. He found the applicant financially self-sufficient and said the evidence did not support her claim that she had played a significant part in the businesses. He said no further order was needed for proper provision. The court was to hear the parties on costs.