The Supreme Court has sent the financial aspects of a multimillion-pound divorce settlement back to the High Court for a fresh assessment of what constitutes proper provision for the wife.
The parties, identified as D.T. and C.T., married in March 1980 and separated in August 1994. D.T., a successful solicitor and property investor, appealed financial orders made when the High Court granted their divorce in December 2001. The divorce decree itself was not challenged.
The High Court had ordered D.T. to pay C.T. a £5 million lump sum over three years. She was also given lifetime occupation of the family home and 55% of benefits accrued under specified life insurance policies. Costs were awarded against D.T.
At the High Court hearing, D.T.'s assets were valued at not less than £15 million and his annual pre-tax professional income at £334,335. C.T., a doctor whose family responsibilities had restricted the development of her practice, had assets worth under £1.25 million and professional income of about £25,000.
The central legal issue on appeal was how Irish courts should approach large-asset divorce cases. The Supreme Court considered the English decision in White v White, which used equality as a check against discrimination when dividing matrimonial assets.
Mr Justice Murphy held that Irish law takes a materially different approach. Under the Constitution and the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996, the task is to ensure "proper provision" for each spouse rather than to divide assets according to an equality-based starting point. Irish law also does not provide for the type of final "clean break" commonly associated with English divorce settlements.
The court said the High Court must first establish the parties' legal and beneficial ownership of their assets and assess their current and potential income. It must then weigh the statutory factors, including their standard of living, contributions to family welfare and financial circumstances.
Because that exercise could not properly be completed on the material before the Supreme Court, the financial issues were remitted to the High Court for reconsideration.