The Supreme Court has sent a family-law dispute back to the High Court for a fresh assessment of the parties’ finances, ruling that 22 acres owned by the husband’s father could not be counted as part of the family home or as an asset belonging to the husband.
In a judgment delivered on 12 July 2005, Mrs Justice McGuinness said the trial judge had erred in including the land in the family home and dividing its value between the spouses. The land was legally owned by the father, who had not been joined as a party to the proceedings. The Supreme Court found no evidence that he had promised or represented that he would transfer it to his son. The husband’s use of the land for a stud farm, and his investment in improvements, did not establish a beneficial interest.
The court allowed the husband’s appeal on that issue. Because more than three years had passed since the High Court’s 2002 hearing and property values and the parties’ finances might have changed, the Supreme Court said it could not recalculate the orders on the old evidence. It returned the matter to the High Court for current financial and valuation evidence and a fresh decision. The court did not itself set a new lump sum.
The original High Court order had included a €489,000 lump sum for the wife, including amounts described as her share of the family home, compensation for her contribution to the family, and funds for acquiring a new home. After a later contempt finding, that sum was reduced by €25,000 to €464,000. The husband had paid €250,000 under an interim Supreme Court order, with execution for the balance stayed pending appeal. The Supreme Court judgment does not state the eventual outcome of the remitted financial assessment.
The wife’s separate appeal concerned the High Court’s finding that she was in contempt for arranging to move the children to a different school without agreement. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the May 2002 order did not name a school, but upheld the contempt finding. It said the proposed school change had not been raised when the custody arrangements were settled, and the wife had proceeded without informing the husband in advance.
The court dismissed the wife’s appeal. It also upheld the €25,000 reduction imposed in lieu of a fine, reasoning that the High Court judge had balanced it against a €28,000 amount previously added to the husband’s lump sum because of his lack of co-operation with discovery. The Supreme Court described that failure as itself a form of contempt.
The judgment concerned appeals from two High Court orders: the ancillary orders made on 16 May 2002 and the contempt order made on 14 November 2002. The decree of judicial separation itself was not appealed.