The High Court allowed an appeal from a Circuit Court judicial separation order by making directions on custody, child expenses and property. It ordered several properties sold, gave the appellant an option to buy the family home and retained seisin until the sale orders are completed. The judgment does not state that the judicial separation decree itself was set aside.
The appeal concerned a Circuit Court order of 16 March 2012 granting judicial separation and ancillary orders. The High Court heard it over six days in July and October 2012. The parties, identified only as L.D. and M.A., are medical practitioners and have three children. The judgment says the existing Circuit Court custody and access order operated pending the appeal.
The High Court set out a four-week custody schedule. The appellant is to have the children for three weekends in the cycle, with the respondent having the fourth weekend. The appellant’s periods begin on Thursday evening after one child’s football training. Holiday time is to be divided equally, with arrangements for midterm breaks and alternating Christmas periods. The court said equal parental rights did not require equal time in the ordinary schedule. It permitted holidays abroad in countries party to the Hague Convention; travel elsewhere requires the other parent’s consent.
The appellant sought maintenance from the respondent, arguing that his earning capacity had been affected by family responsibilities and his return to Ireland. The court rejected that claim, finding he had not relinquished remunerative work to care for the family and was in well-paid permanent employment in Belfast. The respondent was to continue paying the family home mortgage. From 1 August 2013, the appellant was to pay half of specified child-related expenses, including education, medical and dental costs, insurance and clothing. Each parent was to bear ordinary food, housing, rent and childcare costs while the children were with them.
The court declared that a London property held in the respondent’s name belonged to her father, T.M., under a resulting trust, and that neither spouse had an interest in it. It treated the other properties as equally owned, subject to specific shares: the appellant was entitled to half of the Dublin 8 property, the respondent to half of the Galway property and a quarter of the Northern Ireland property; the family home and Dublin 8 apartment were held equally as joint tenants.
The Dublin 8 property, apartment, and Galway lands and derelict cottage were ordered sold without delay, with proceeds applied to reduce joint debts in the stated priority. The appellant was given an option to buy the family home at market value after the other sales, with completion by 1 December 2013. If he could not exercise the option, the court would direct a sale. The court also directed a £6,250 payment to the respondent for her share of the Northern Ireland site, valued at £25,000, and made specified declarations concerning bank account balances. It declined to make a pension adjustment order and ordered the life policy sum insured reduced to €200,000 on each life, with premiums shared equally.
The court left the 2013 access schedule and the designation of a GP and consultant to agreement, with the court to decide if agreement failed. It also permitted the order to be shown to financial institutions and advisers for the stated purpose of completing property sales and reducing mortgage debt.