The High Court has dismissed an appeal against Circuit Court orders enforcing property arrangements made when a couple divorced, ruling that the Circuit Court had power to order the sale of land owned by the husband under the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996.
In a judgment delivered on 2 October 2023, Mr Justice Jordan affirmed the appealed orders. They included orders for the sale of the family home and adjoining land, requiring the husband to leave the properties and keep a 2km distance from them, and transferring the home’s electricity and water supplies into the wife’s sole name. The court did not decide how the proceeds from the adjoining land are to be distributed; that issue remains for the Circuit Court.
The divorce decree, made on 30 July 2020, had ordered the family home sold after a nine-month period in which the husband could buy out the wife’s share. If that did not happen, the proceeds were to be split equally. The Circuit Court also ordered him to pay a €25,000 lump sum for past and future maintenance. The High Court said the lump sum remained unpaid.
The judgment recounts repeated disputes over implementing the sale, including the home’s garage and utility connections. It records evidence that potential buyers were intimidated and that three sales fell through. The High Court was satisfied that the husband’s conduct caused the lost sales and that a sale would not progress while he lived next door. Those conclusions are findings in the appeal judgment, which also describes the conduct as obstruction and contempt of court.
The husband argued that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to order the sale of the adjoining land because it was not covered by the original divorce orders. He also argued that the mortgage creditor should have had an opportunity to make representations and that the sale disproportionately interfered with his property rights. The wife submitted that section 19(1) allowed the sale after an unpaid lump sum order and that the adjoining land was unencumbered.
The High Court accepted the wife’s interpretation of section 19(1): the unpaid lump sum order and the husband’s beneficial interest in the land gave the Circuit Court power to order its sale. It found the land was unencumbered, so the argument about the mortgage creditor did not apply. The court also rejected the property-rights and fair-procedures challenges, noting that the sale application had been made by motion and affidavit and that the husband could have filed a replying affidavit.
The court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Circuit Court orders. It made no order as to costs on the application to extend time, but awarded the wife the costs of the appeal, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree.