The High Court directed the sale of all properties held by a separated couple and ordered that the net proceeds be divided equally. The ruling addressed proper provision in the wife’s judicial separation proceedings; the judge said the form of the orders would be discussed with counsel.
D. H. began proceedings in May 2008. The hearing took place on 8 and 9 October 2009. The parties had been married since 1980 and were living separately while continuing to share the family home with their two adult children, neither of whom was dependent.
The judgment records that neither spouse was working or had a pension. The husband had built up a property portfolio, and his business had been sold in 2004. The wife had worked after the marriage, later focused mainly on the home and family, and worked part-time in the family business for a few years from 1999. The judge said she had given up career opportunities to care for the family.
The wife’s valuer put the Irish property portfolio at more than €7 million and the French property at at least €2 million. The judge noted charges on the properties, including the husband’s personal guarantees, of about €2.6 million. The parties also faced accommodation and living costs, legal fees and other borrowing. The husband had not raised a further €200,000 around July 2009, which the judge said had to be considered alongside the portfolio valuations.
The wife’s counsel argued that accommodation and living expenses needed to be balanced against debt repayment and proposed an immediate sale of the family home to release funds. The judge agreed that the competing needs required balancing, but said it must not put the husband’s ability to discharge all debt at risk.
The court accepted the husband’s evidence that a company in which his sister held a 25% shareholding had initially funded two parcels of land. It also noted that neither child was dependent and that neither spouse seriously expected to retain the family home.
The judge agreed that an agreed valuation expert should set reserves and sale methods, with both parties co-operating. If the expert proposed renting properties before sale, either party could apply back to court. The judge also directed that existing debts, including ongoing legal costs, be quantified and said new debts incurred from that point should be met from each party’s share of asset-sale funds. A potential flood-damage claim would not count as a new debt if successful.
The judgment did not specify the final form of the orders: the judge said that would be discussed with counsel.