Judgment: 2021-06-22 · Court archive

Court of Appeal doubles wife’s maintenance and removes four-year limit

The court set aside the High Court’s maintenance and health insurance orders, directing €1,600 monthly maintenance and continued private health insurance for the wife.

Court of Appeal · [2021] IECA 177

Who, what, where, when and why

Who

See the report below for the parties involved.

What

The court set aside the High Court’s maintenance and health insurance orders, directing €1,600 monthly maintenance and continued private health insurance for the wife.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 24 October 2018

    The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court orders concerning the wife’s maintenance and health insurance. It ordered the husband to pay her €1,600 per month from 24 October 2018, payable on the 24th of each month. The amount is to be reviewed downwards when she becomes entitled to pension payments. The husband must also pay for her private health insurance from the date of the Court of Appeal order.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The ruling arose from the wife’s appeal against financial orders made as part of a judicial separation. The Court of Appeal said the High Court had not made proper provision for her because its maintenance award was too low and too short, given the evidence about her work history, earning prospects and family responsibilities.

The Court of Appeal has increased a wife’s spousal maintenance from €800 to €1,600 a month and removed the four-year limit imposed by the High Court. It also ordered her husband to continue paying for her private health insurance.

The ruling arose from the wife’s appeal against financial orders made as part of a judicial separation. The Court of Appeal said the High Court had not made proper provision for her because its maintenance award was too low and too short, given the evidence about her work history, earning prospects and family responsibilities.

The couple, whose identities are anonymised in the judgment, married in 1991 and have three children. The husband farms land transferred to him by his father in 2002. The wife worked in the home and on the farm during the marriage, including helping with milking and calf care, while mainly caring for the children. The High Court had granted a €120,000 lump sum, transferred the husband’s pension, and ordered €800 monthly spousal maintenance for four years. It also ordered maintenance for the children and private health insurance for the wife and children for four years.

On appeal, the wife argued that the High Court had given insufficient weight to her contributions and had overestimated her ability to support herself through future employment. The Court of Appeal agreed that there was no reliable evidence she could obtain stable, adequately paid work within four years. Her employment outside the home had been intermittent, and a nine-week contract in 2016 did not establish likely future earnings. The court also found that the High Court had relied on speculation about possible welfare payments and had not adequately weighed the wife’s responsibilities toward children with vulnerabilities and disabilities.

The appeal court said the inherited farm’s role as the family’s principal source of income was relevant to the financial assessment. It did not order a division of the farmland. Instead, it concluded that proper provision required higher and ongoing maintenance, taking account of the wife’s foreseeable needs and the husband’s means.

The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court orders concerning the wife’s maintenance and health insurance. It ordered the husband to pay her €1,600 per month from 24 October 2018, payable on the 24th of each month. The amount is to be reviewed downwards when she becomes entitled to pension payments. The husband must also pay for her private health insurance from the date of the Court of Appeal order.

The court did not remit the matter to the High Court. It said either party may apply to the appropriate District or Circuit Court if circumstances change or new evidence emerges. On costs, the judgment proposed that the husband contribute €10,000 toward the wife’s appeal costs, payable within six months. Either party could seek a different costs order within five days, in which case an oral hearing would be arranged.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review