The High Court has given an ex-husband one last chance to pursue his application to reduce or end maintenance payments, despite serious arrears and concerns about his disclosure and compliance with court orders.
In a judgment delivered on 15 April 2011, Mr Justice Henry Abbott adjourned the ex-wife’s application to dismiss the maintenance review. It may be re-entered, and if it is, the ex-wife may also seek to have the case proceed as undefended. The judge did not dismiss the review application at this stage.
The application concerns a periodical payments order made on 21 December 2001. The couple had divorced by High Court decree that month under an approved financial settlement. In 2006, the ex-wife sought to set aside all or part of the settlement, alleging fraud and non-disclosure. In June 2009, Ms Justice Irvine found that the ex-husband had concealed ownership of or interests in properties and directed him to pay a further €2.5 million. Conditions imposed on a stay pending appeal included paying maintenance arrears and ongoing payments. The ex-husband stopped paying in December 2009 and applied to vary the maintenance order.
The ex-wife argued that he should not be allowed to pursue that application because he had failed to pay maintenance and had breached disclosure directions and a Mareva injunction. She also alleged transfers or disposal of assets, including €338,000 on deposit. The ex-husband disputed that he was in contempt, argued that the alleged breaches did not prevent justice from being done, and said the ex-wife had breached an agreement governing his application. He said he lacked sufficient resources to meet the payments.
Justice Abbott said the court had power, in rare cases, to dismiss an application in limine where conduct amounted to contempt and abused court process. But he considered that dismissal should be held in reserve. He cited changed economic circumstances, the claim that the ex-husband’s finances had worsened, the ex-wife’s interest in a prompt adjustment, and the need to allow the maintenance issue to be addressed.
The judge rejected attempts to narrow the requested disclosure. His directions covered updated mortgage and bank statements; records relating to other proceedings, a partnership and business interests; information about US assets and financial transfers; and details of funds used to repay a €60,000 loan. The ex-wife was also directed to disclose details of payments to NM U. No order was made concerning properties identified as A–G while the appeal remained before the Supreme Court, unless the ex-husband chose to abandon that appeal. The parties were given liberty to apply over disclosure and steps needed to avoid overlap with the appeal.