The Supreme Court has varied a pension adjustment in a long-running divorce case, directing that the wife receive 75% of the remaining pension fund and the husband 25%. The court said her lack of a home and income weighed more heavily than the husband’s position, while also taking account of his worsening health and finances.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 22 January 2019, concerned two appeals from orders made by the High Court in 2013. The High Court had granted the divorce and awarded the wife 80% of the husband’s pension fund, with a reckonable service period from 1 August 1982 to 22 April 1998. By the time of the Supreme Court’s decision, the dispute concerned allocation of the remaining 40% of the fund; the wife had already received an interim 40%.
The husband argued that the original split was too generous to the wife. He told the court that his health had deteriorated, he had significant debts and low income, and he was caring for the couple’s daughter. He said he had secure accommodation for his lifetime in a home inherited from his father, but described his finances as severely strained.
The wife told the court she had no home or effective income, was living abroad in a friend’s home, and wanted to return to Ireland. She said she was in debt and that much of the money previously received had gone towards legal fees. The court noted that both parties’ circumstances had worsened, but found the wife’s situation had deteriorated more and that her accommodation needs were particularly pressing. It also said the husband’s more stable housing position, health and financial circumstances had to be weighed.
The court said it was not entirely clear why the High Court had initially selected an 80/20 split. It considered a remittal to the High Court would achieve little and said the litigation should be concluded. It allowed the appeal to the extent set out in its judgment and varied the High Court order to give the wife three quarters and the husband one quarter of the balance of the fund. It made no order for costs and directed that any outstanding matter be dealt with by the High Court.
The husband’s second appeal challenged the costs incurred by the pension trustees and administrators. The Supreme Court did not decide whether those fees were excessive: they had not been given notice that the issue would be raised at the appeal. The court said it could not determine the complaint and noted that the High Court had suggested the matter could be taken to the Pensions Ombudsman.