The High Court has granted a judicial separation to a couple identified as S.A. and B.A. and directed the sale of their family home and entire farm as part of orders for financial provision. The court ordered the husband to pay his wife €800,000 and a further €100,000 for the benefit of their two dependent children, who remain in education.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Keane on 16 July 2014, says the couple had lived apart since October 2010. The judge declined to grant separation on the basis of alleged unreasonable behaviour, finding instead that the marriage had broken down to the extent that a normal marital relationship had not existed for well over a year before the wife’s application. The separation decree was made under the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989.
The couple had four adult children. Two remained dependent because they were under 23 and in full-time third-level education. The parties had agreed that €100,000 from their assets should be set aside for the children’s education. The court said it would direct the sale of the family home under the Family Law Act 1995 and the sale of the entire farm property, including a bungalow and annex.
The farm, held in the husband’s sole name and inherited from his family, was valued by agreement at €2.25 million. The husband’s proposed sale of the whole property was opposed by the wife, who sought to retain the family home, surrounding buildings and about 19 acres. She proposed using the property for an art and healing centre, renting buildings and land, and retaining part of the Single Farm Payment.
The judge found the wife had made a full contribution to the home and family and a significant contribution to the family’s income and earning capacity. Both spouses had limited future earning capacity because of physical disabilities. However, the wife had prepared no business plan, projections or market research for her proposals. The judge preferred the husband’s expert evidence on the effect of dividing the farm and was not satisfied that the wife’s plan would avoid a significant reduction in the value of the assets available for provision.
After the sale and payments, the husband was permitted to retain the balance of the proceeds, subject to sale costs and the farm and reasonable household debts specified in the judgment. Each party was to secure their own accommodation. The judge declined to make a maintenance order or a pension adjustment order and indicated that the husband could retain specified shares, bank deposits other than funds in the wife’s sole account, and personal collections.
The judgment set out proposed orders and said the court would hear the parties on the form of the final order and whether cross-orders under the 1995 Act were appropriate. It does not record the outcome of those further submissions.