The High Court has ordered a transfer of property interests, a €470,000 lump sum and 40% of a husband’s pension fund to his wife as proper provision in judicial separation proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 17 July 2024, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson said the case was heard in the context of the wife’s application for judicial separation. The husband had issued separate divorce proceedings in April 2024. The judge said those proceedings would follow, and that the orders made in the separation case were intended to constitute proper provision for the purposes of a divorce decree and related orders that could be made later. The judgment did not itself grant a divorce decree.
The couple married in 2003 and had lived apart since January 2021. Their child remained dependent but was close to becoming independent. Both parents had accommodation needs, and each was living in a separate, unencumbered property.
The wife alleged that the husband had depleted joint company assets, failed to keep her informed about transactions and concealed other resources. She also argued that his financial conduct was intended to undermine her claims. The husband denied wrongdoing and non-disclosure.
The judge found that the evidence did not establish wanton dissipation of assets or financial misconduct. She considered the use of funds in the investment companies commercially reasonable and found no intention to defeat the wife’s claims. However, she criticised the husband for failing to keep the wife, an equal shareholder, meaningfully informed about plans and investments.
The court ordered the husband’s share in the property where the wife lives transferred to her. He is to retain the family home, with the jointly owned strip of land transferred to him. His interests in two companies holding a portfolio of five rental properties are to be transferred to the wife.
Within six months after the orders are perfected, the wife is to receive €470,000 in exchange for transferring her shares in two investment companies to the husband or his nominee. Forty per cent of the husband’s pension fund is to be transferred to her. The wife is to retain her jewellery and paintings, car and bank cash, except that jewellery belonging to the husband’s mother is to be returned.
Existing income support and payment of household bills are to continue until the specified transfers and lump sum are completed. The parties are otherwise to retain their own assets and liabilities. The court made no provision for the child, whose dependency was expected to end, and made no order for costs.