The High Court ordered that €750,000 be paid to the applicant from funds held in the proceedings, as part of its decision resolving claims by a financial institution against her and the respondent. It also entered judgment for €1,801,491.82 against the respondent and stayed that judgment for two years, subject to conditions tied to the sale of other properties.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Henry Abbott on 19 December 2014, concerned disputes over proceeds from the sale of the parties’ Dublin family home and a property in France, alongside their debts to the financial institution. The couple had been married since 1980. A judicial separation decision was made in 2009, followed by orders directing sales of properties and payment of debts. The respondent appealed the terms of the order, but the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal in 2012.
The financial institution claimed that an “all sums due” mortgage over the family home secured the parties’ wider liabilities, and that it had equitable rights to the French property proceeds. The applicant disputed the mortgage documentation and argued that her family law entitlements took priority. The respondent accepted that he owed money to the institution but disputed its claims to the sale proceeds. These were the parties’ claims and submissions; the court considered the evidence and legal issues in deciding the notice party dispute.
The family home produced net proceeds of €700,271.71, and the French property produced €1,801,784.96. After payments already ordered, the fund held in the proceedings stood at €2,577,221.30 in September 2013. The court heard evidence over several days in 2014.
Justice Abbott found that the respondent had acted to the detriment of the property sales and had caused delay, asset loss and interest to accumulate. He concluded that the court could depart from mechanical implementation of the earlier family law judgment in light of the delay, the financial institution’s involvement and a settlement offer accepted by the applicant in relation to her claims. The court accepted that settlement as a step towards making provision for her, while leaving the divorce application undecided.
The court entered judgment for €1,801,491.82 against the respondent after accounting for a €1 million payment to the financial institution. The two-year stay was conditional: if the respondent sold any provincial property, the net proceeds, less any deductions agreed by the institution, were to be paid to it. Any remaining funds from the existing sale proceeds were also to go to the institution after the payments directed by the judgment.
A further €100,000 was to be paid to the respondent only if he showed he would use it for its intended purpose, withdrew proceedings in France and relevant Supreme Court appeals, and indicated he would not appeal this judgment. The applicant was required to maintain net assets of at least €300,000 until the divorce was finalised, though she could use that sum towards unencumbered accommodation. The court made no order on the divorce claim and adjourned it, with liberty for the applicant to proceed later. It also directed that the in-camera rule be lifted for specified notifications to the financial institution and the respondent’s sister’s solicitor.