The High Court has rejected Mr A’s appeal seeking a share of the home awarded to Ms A in earlier family law proceedings, affirming the Circuit Court order in their divorce case.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 9 May 2022. The appeal concerned whether proper provision had been made in divorce proceedings after an earlier judicial separation order. The court’s decision was to affirm the Circuit Court order; it did not decide costs, which may be addressed at a later hearing.
The order under appeal, made by Judge McDonnell on 7 September 2021, continued arrangements made in 2008. Those arrangements gave each party a family property as a residence, provided for the couple’s two children to live in Ms A’s custody and primary care, divided certain monies and made no maintenance order. The judgment said each party had separate pension arrangements producing roughly equal monthly payments.
Mr A argued that he was now suffering financially and should receive a stake in Ms A’s home, which the judge said would almost certainly require its sale and division of any profits. The judge found that the earlier provision for Ms A and the children was proper and deserved significant weight. He concluded that Mr A’s later financial difficulties did not justify making Ms A bear the consequences of his decisions after the marriage breakdown.
The judgment recounted evidence that Mr A had spent many thousands of euro on drugs, including drugs not prescribed by his medical adviser, as well as on unspecified goods or services from or via Panama and alcohol. The judge also noted that Mr A had lost the residence awarded to him in 2008 and now lived in rented accommodation. The judgment said a tax-free retirement lump sum of €75,534.77, paid on 30 November 2008, did not appear to have been disclosed to the Circuit Court before the earlier order. The judge considered it unlikely Mr A had been unaware of the impending payment.
The judge acknowledged Mr A’s nervous ill-health and Ms A’s financial hardship after the 2008 order, when she worked multiple jobs and rented rooms in her home while sleeping in the attic. He said he might have reached a different decision on maintenance if he had been the trial judge, but treated that as an income issue distinct from the capital provision on appeal.
The High Court affirmed the Circuit Court order. The judge invited the parties to liaise with the registrar or his judicial assistant about a date for any costs application, while noting that agreement between them could avoid a costs hearing.