The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the level of financial provision ordered in a divorce case and sent the matter back to the High Court to determine proper provision. It ruled that the High Court’s overall award was excessive, including orders for €1 million to buy an additional house and a €600,000 lump sum for the wife’s use. The Supreme Court did not decide the value of the husband’s assets or settle the replacement terms.
The parties, identified in the judgment as Y.G. and N.G., married in 1977, separated in 1995 and signed a separation agreement in August 1996. It provided weekly maintenance, a house in an estate, payment of the wife’s VHI subscription and a £70,000 lump sum. The agreement described itself as a full and final settlement. The wife later sought a divorce and financial provision under the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996. The High Court granted the divorce in March 2009 and made a range of additional financial orders. The husband appealed those orders.
The Supreme Court said a separation agreement intended as full and final should receive significant weight, but the statutory duty to ensure proper provision still applies. A court must consider all the circumstances, including significant changes in need. The judgment said the wife had become ill and could not work, and that her maintenance under the earlier arrangement had been low. Those circumstances could justify increased maintenance. The Court also found a deficiency in the original provision for maintenance and future security.
However, it held that the High Court’s overall financial provision exceeded what was proper. The wife already lived in the house provided under the agreement, so awarding funds for a second house was an error. The €600,000 capital payment was also excessive in light of the other provision for housing, maintenance and VHI. The judgment said the wife’s use of her earlier capital was relevant to the circumstances, but did not bar further provision given her health and the low earlier maintenance.
The Court noted that the husband’s assets had changed substantially since the agreement, but made no finding on their value. It said wealth acquired after separation does not by itself give the other spouse a right to a share; changed needs may still be considered. The specific maintenance and pension provisions were left for the High Court to determine on remittal, taking account of the principles set out in the judgment.