The High Court granted a divorce to M.P. and A.P. and increased the applicant’s maintenance after reviewing their 1992 separation settlement and their financial circumstances. The court also extinguished each party’s succession rights and left the existing arrangements for their children in place.
The judgment, delivered by O’Higgins J. on 2 March 2005, arose from divorce proceedings brought by M.P. under the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996. A.P. opposed ancillary relief beyond a divorce and also sought financial orders. The couple had lived apart since May 1992, and the judge was satisfied that the statutory separation and no-reconciliation requirements were met and proper provision had been made for their children.
The parties’ 1992 settlement followed judicial separation proceedings. It provided for the sale and division of the family home, a payment of £175,000 to M.P., monthly maintenance, and payments towards the children’s health care and education. Disputes over the settlement led to further litigation. In the divorce case, M.P. alleged that A.P. had altered a tax document to conceal money and that this had affected the settlement. A.P. denied that allegation. The judge rejected it, finding the document had been adapted as a template for a tax estimate and that there was no concealed deposit money of the kind alleged.
The judgment records a substantial difference between the parties’ finances. A.P.’s after-tax income in 2003 was €591,254, while M.P.’s after-tax income was €31,717. M.P. had left paid work to care for their adopted children and returned to part-time teaching in 2004. The court considered her reduced earning capacity, the terms and history of the settlement, each party’s resources and responsibilities, and the arrangements proposed to secure future maintenance. It declined to make a property adjustment order or a large lump-sum award.
Instead, the court ordered maintenance that would yield M.P. €38,000 a year without her having to pay tax on it, starting in the first week of May 2005. Payments were to be made weekly by standing order and increased in line with the Consumer Price Index. The order provided for insurance to secure payments until A.P. turned 60; from then until he turned 72, payments were to be secured from consultancy fees if he died first. From his 70th birthday, the maintenance was to be secured by an annuity charged on his Churchtown property.
The court also assessed €50,000 as appropriate in connection with extinguishing succession rights and ordered that the existing car provision end upon payment of that sum. M.P. was to be responsible for her own health insurance, which the court said it had taken into account in setting maintenance. The judge said the form of the orders and costs would be addressed with counsel.