The High Court granted a divorce to an anonymised applicant and respondent and set monthly maintenance of €1,886.50 for their two children. The new amount is to take effect when the applicant relocates to Ireland; the maintenance ordered by a court in Country B is to continue until then.
In a judgment delivered on 23 February 2024, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson said the parties had agreed that child maintenance was the only live issue before her, apart from pensions and orders to secure maintenance. She said the existing Irish orders on the children’s care arrangements would continue, with liberty to apply to the court. The divorce hearing was not asked to review those arrangements, and the consent order envisaged no review before April or May 2025.
The couple married in December 2015 and lived and worked in Country B. Their two children, aged six and four at the time of the judgment, moved to Ireland with the respondent in 2021 under a relocation agreement. A separate agreement, ruled by a Country B court in May 2021, set child maintenance at about €5,880 a month plus 50 per cent of the applicant’s annual net bonus. The judgment said a claim over alleged bonus arrears remained before the Country B courts.
The applicant sought a substantial reduction, citing changed incomes, lower travel costs after moving to Ireland and the costs of a new home and expected child with his partner. The respondent accepted that a reduction was appropriate but argued for a higher figure, pointing to her rent and the children’s needs. The judge assessed the parties’ current resources and outgoings, finding reasonable monthly child expenses of €2,573, to be shared equally. She added €600 a month toward the children’s share of accommodation and subsistence costs with their mother, producing the €1,886.50 figure.
The judge directed that the new maintenance be a composite payment covering the children’s expenses except costs when they are with the applicant and his discretionary spending. No vouching is required. Payments are to be made by direct debit or standing order. The court made no further orders about future bonuses.
On pensions, the judge said she could not leave the issue entirely to the Country B court without definitive information about what it would decide. She considered proper provision to include equal division of the applicant’s Country B private pension accrued to the divorce, while each party retained other specified pensions. She allowed the parties to return to court if the intended pension orders could not be achieved.
The court also made mutual orders under section 18(10) of the Divorce Act and proposed using two-thirds of each party’s life policy or death-in-service benefit to secure maintenance for the two children. Precise orders were deferred until policy details are provided. The judge said she did not intend to make a costs order, subject to any further submissions.