The High Court has granted a decree of judicial separation and ordered the sale of a couple’s jointly owned company, family home and other assets, with the net proceeds generally divided equally. The court has not yet decided who will pay the costs of the proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 31 May 2022, Mr Justice Jordan said the couple, identified as F.B. and D.B., married in 1973 and were both 74. They have three adult children. Their proceedings began in August 2018 and were transferred from the Circuit Court to the High Court by consent in January 2022.
The judge ordered both parties to sell their shares in the family company as soon as possible and in the most tax-efficient manner. A financial services firm, whose name is redacted in the judgment, was appointed to advise on the sale and prepare an information memorandum by 30 June 2022. Once the parties agreed a price range, D.B. could make an offer to buy the company.
The court also ordered the family home to be put on the market on 1 September 2022, with both parties entitled to live there until its sale closes. The net proceeds are to be split equally. The judge rejected F.B.’s request to have the company sale completed before the home was listed, saying that downsizing was sensible given the parties’ age and the size of the house.
The respondent was directed to sell commercial property, to be marketed alongside the company and, if not sold with it, afterwards. The court ordered the old car sold and its net proceeds divided equally. Bank balances, investments and shareholdings other than company shares are also to be consolidated and divided equally, subject to the order’s exceptions. F.B. is to keep an inheritance of €36,330.72. The respondent is to transfer 50% of the value of the pensions to F.B. before 1 July 2022.
The judgment addressed disputed valuations of the yacht and a prestige car. The court valued them at €70,000 and €50,000 respectively, but ordered that D.B. would be solely entitled to the yacht and his car. It declined to order repayment of €7,500 and €3,000 that F.B. said should be returned to bank accounts, and refused to include a broad indemnity concerning possible Revenue claims against the company.
The parties’ experts gave sharply different company valuations. The court considered the respondent’s expert’s approach more realistic, while noting that the eventual sale price would determine the company’s value. It nevertheless ordered the sale to proceed and said the parties deserved finality after years of litigation.
The judgment also made mutual orders ending each party’s succession rights against the other. The court will hear submissions on costs.