The High Court said it would grant a divorce and outlined orders for the sale of the family home and properties at Address F, the applicant’s ownership of Address B, and a share of the respondent’s survivor’s pension. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 6 November 2020, left some matters for a further hearing to settle the final orders.
The parties had been separated for more than two years of the three years before the proceedings began, and the court found there was no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The respondent did not oppose the divorce. The court said the statutory requirements for a decree were met and that proper provision had to be made for the spouses; it noted there were no dependent children.
The proposed orders were tied to settlements negotiated by the applicant with Creditor 1 and Creditor 3. The court said the family home at Address A should be sold, with the Creditor 2 mortgage and sale costs paid first, and proceeds held by the applicant’s solicitors to meet the agreed creditor settlements. It also said properties at Address F should be sold. The exact scope remained unresolved: the court understood that only two folios might be included in the settlement, and scheduled a further hearing to clarify which properties were covered and what would happen to others.
The applicant was to have sole ownership of Address B, which she inherited and uses for her business and rental income. The court rejected the respondent’s claim that the business was jointly operated. It described retaining Address B while the respondent kept his own pension as a fair arrangement. The applicant was also to receive the full survivor’s portion of the respondent’s pension if he died first.
The court said the applicant could live at Address A to the respondent’s exclusion pending its sale, but allowed him eight weeks to find alternative accommodation. During that period, she could enter his partitioned section to use heating or electricity switches affecting her section. The court also proposed that the respondent pay half of the applicant’s legal costs, citing the added complexity caused by his inadequate financial disclosure.
Other financial matters were left open. Funds previously frozen by the court would remain frozen until the property sales, to cover possible shortfalls; any remaining sums and potential lump-sum payments from Address F proceeds would be considered later. The court also proposed declaring the applicant a 50% owner of Address E and the couple’s boat, while noting the respondent claimed the boat had been destroyed without independent evidence. A further hearing within ten working days was intended to settle the final orders, not to provide an appeal opportunity.