The High Court granted summary judgment to Ireland and the Attorney General in a claim by L.B. over property and pension orders made during family law proceedings. Mr Justice Hogan said the claim must fail and struck it out under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. He also said the case effectively re-litigated matters previously determined by the High Court and Supreme Court.
L.B. sought declarations and damages, arguing that State action had effectively taken assets from him after the breakdown of his marriage. Earlier family law orders had excluded him from the family home, directed its sale and divided the proceeds, and awarded his former spouse a share of his pension. L.B. maintained that he had bought and paid for the home himself. The judgment records that evidence before the court suggested this was so.
The judgment recounts that the 1998 judicial separation proceedings resulted in an order to sell the home and divide the proceeds equally, though the sale did not proceed then. Later divorce proceedings resulted in an order for a sale, with 40 per cent of the proceeds to L.B. and 60 per cent to his former spouse. A pension adjustment order awarded her 25 per cent of his pension entitlement for the period from 30 December 1964 to 10 June 2004.
L.B. had previously challenged the constitutionality of legislation permitting property and pension adjustment orders. That challenge was rejected by the High Court in 2006, and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision in 2009. Justice Hogan relied on that history in addressing the current claim.
He said the Constitution allows, and requires, legislation enabling courts to make proper financial provision for spouses when granting a divorce. Such orders, he held, give effect to obligations between spouses and do not amount to the State taking a spouse’s property in the sense argued by L.B. He also rejected the claim that compensation was due from the State for the transfer of assets under those orders.
The court granted summary judgment only to the first and second defendants, Ireland and the Attorney General, and struck out the claim. The judgment additionally stated that, insofar as necessary, the proceedings would be struck out as res judicata because they effectively raised matters already decided in the earlier litigation.