The High Court has approved an agreement replacing an unpaid €6.65 million balance under a 2008 judicial separation order with a lump sum of €10.59 million payable on the respondent’s 104th birthday or the day before his death, if earlier.
Ms Justice Reynolds made the decision on 25 June 2018 after considering two motions: one by an executor, with the other executors’ consent, to enforce payment due to the estate of the deceased spouse; and a motion by the respondent to discharge parts of the existing order. The judgment says the parties presented the applications by consent.
The 2008 order followed a settlement between the respondent and the deceased spouse. It required a €7.65 million lump sum in two instalments: €1 million, which was paid, and €6.65 million due by 15 October 2008, which remained unpaid. The order also provided for 4% annual interest on the outstanding sum, property transfers on payment, maintenance and a lifetime or earlier-ending right of residence in the former family home.
The judgment records that the settlement had been based largely on assumed property values and the respondent’s assessed wealth. The worldwide financial crash and collapse in property markets followed within months. The executors accepted that the respondent’s finances had changed, and all parties agreed that forcing a sale of assets to recover the debt would be contrary to the children’s interests. The parties reached their revised agreement after prolonged negotiations and tax and actuarial advice.
The deceased died in 2008. The judgment says the two children were the principal beneficiaries of a trust under her will. The respondent later sold the former family home and, at the time of judgment, lived elsewhere with the two dependent children.
The court considered whether the instalment lump sum could be varied under section 18 of the Family Law Act 1995, including after one spouse’s death. It reviewed earlier decisions concerning variation of lump sum orders and noted the absence of reported Irish authority on the post-death issue. Justice Reynolds concluded that enforcing the 2008 order would be fundamentally unjust and inequitable and that proper provision had to be considered for the parties and their children.
The judgment says the court would grant the orders sought. It does not set out the operative order’s full wording, so the precise terms discharging or varying the 2008 provisions are not specified in the judgment text provided.