The Court of Appeal has allowed a husband’s appeal against an order requiring him to pay his wife €10,000 net per month from April 2026, after finding there was not enough evidence that he would have the income to meet it following retirement.
In a judgment delivered on 27 January 2025, Ms Justice Faherty said the High Court had not had a sufficient evidential basis to conclude that the husband would continue in work after retiring from his employment in 2025 and earn enough to fund the payments. The court vacated the maintenance order. It did not disturb the other financial provisions challenged by the husband.
The couple married in 1988 and separated in 2019. Their children were not dependants for the proceedings. The High Court granted a decree of divorce and made financial orders, including that the wife receive the family home, a French property, one investment property and the husband’s Irish pension. The husband was to retain a second investment property, his Isle of Man pension and his share portfolio. The orders also included a €360,000 lump sum, payable in three annual instalments, and a €191,668 pension equalisation payment.
The High Court had ordered the husband to pay the wife €10,000 net per month from April 2026, after his planned retirement. The Court of Appeal said the High Court had no concrete evidence that he was likely to earn the approximately €240,000 gross annual income that would be needed to make those payments, before meeting his own needs. The wife’s contribution to the marriage and the impact of homemaking on her earning capacity were relevant, Faherty J said, but could not make up for the lack of evidence supporting this particular future payment. The other assets and lump sum provisions had already taken account of those circumstances.
The husband’s other challenges concerned the division of a jointly held Keytrade account and the pension equalisation payment. The Court of Appeal upheld the equal division of the joint account, finding it was within the High Court’s discretion. It also upheld the €191,668 pension payment, which reflected an increase in the Isle of Man pension’s value after the trial. The appeal court found no basis to disturb that figure.
The court also directed that the divorce order be amended to include mutual blocking orders under section 18(10) of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996. These orders were intended to address the parties’ claims against each other’s estates, subject to the terms of the court order. The court proposed no order as to appeal costs, noting that the husband succeeded on only one of the three principal issues. Parties were given 28 days to seek a different costs order.