The Court of Appeal dismissed a wife’s appeal for further capital provision in divorce proceedings, upheld the existing maintenance arrangement subject to an undertaking by her husband, and varied the High Court order concerning when the divorce decree could issue.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 26 October 2016, concerned appeals from a 2012 High Court decision. The wife challenged the assessment of proper provision. The husband cross-appealed against making the divorce decree conditional on payment of legal costs.
The couple married in 1987, separated in 2003 and have four adult children. In judicial separation proceedings in 2005, the High Court ordered the husband to pay the wife €3.3 million, annual maintenance of €240,000 net, and specified legal costs. The Court of Appeal said the capital payment had been intended to provide for suitable accommodation, considered alongside the maintenance award.
The wife later bought a country house for more than €5.1 million and spent a further €1 million on repairs. The property was ultimately sold in 2012 for about €670,000 after the Bank of Ireland appointed a receiver. The Court of Appeal concluded that the original capital provision was not shown to have been inadequate. It dismissed the wife’s appeal on further capital provision, finding that her subsequent financial difficulties did not, by themselves, justify another capital payment.
The High Court’s 2012 order required the husband to pay the rent on the wife’s London accommodation and €50,000 a year for her needs. The appeal court upheld that arrangement, on the basis that the husband would undertake to ensure she continued to receive €50,000 net annually despite an attachment order in favour of the Bank of Ireland. The judgment said a material change in circumstances could support a fresh application to vary maintenance.
The High Court had made the divorce decree conditional on payment of about €629,000 in taxed costs from the judicial separation proceedings and €1 million on account of the wife’s divorce costs. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to make the decree conditional in that form. It nevertheless varied the order to provide that proper provision would not be established, and the decree could not issue, until the husband discharged the 2005 costs order and paid the €1 million. The court granted liberty to apply to the High Court if necessary after those sums were discharged.