The Supreme Court increased a lump sum payable to M.D. from €848,683 to €900,000 after reviewing the asset calculation in a long-running judicial separation case. The joint judgment of Clarke and MacMenamin JJ., delivered on 26 February 2015, dealt with the parties’ appeals over the distribution of assets following an earlier order for an equal division.
The Court said the High Court’s 2014 order differed from the calculation in its written judgment. It reconstructed the calculation from post-judgment submissions and identified adjustments required to the schedule. The Court added the €150,000 payment on account to both the total assets and M.D.’s assets, deducted €15,000 from N.D.’s shares and investments because that amount represented a pension, and increased the value attributed to a property sold by M.D. from €190,455 to €224,028. It calculated that an equalising payment of €899,396.50 was indicated, but ordered €900,000, noting that some inputs were estimates.
The Court upheld the exclusion of M.D.’s public service pension from the asset division. It said the earlier Supreme Court remit concerned equality of assets and did not include pensions. It also upheld the trial judge’s treatment of the farmland sale: the trial judge had found that opposition and obstruction contributed to delay and a lower sale price, and the Supreme Court found evidence supported attributing a net €180,000 shortfall to the asset calculation. The Court dismissed both parties’ appeals concerning the estimated allowance for M.D.’s rental accommodation during the delay.
N.D.’s challenge to the valuation of the farmland was dismissed. The Court also dismissed his claim concerning €54,887 in rental income that M.D. had diverted from a property he owned. It held that the rents issue should have been resolved or pursued in 2008 and was outside the limited question remitted for the later asset division.
M.D.’s cross-appeal over legal costs was dismissed. The Court left the appeal concerning the High Court rehearing costs, including an order that N.D. pay 80% of M.D.’s costs, for further submissions, along with costs of the Supreme Court appeal. The judgment also made general recommendations for complex family-law cases, including clear asset schedules and cost estimates.