The High Court allowed a divorce appeal and granted the decree and ancillary orders agreed by the spouses, overturning the Circuit Court’s refusal to rule their settlement. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Jordan on 20 December 2023.
The spouses, identified as R. and M., married in Ireland in 2004 and began living separate and apart in July 2017 while remaining under the same roof. Their divorce proceedings began in July 2022. They signed a full settlement on 19 July 2023 and both considered it proper provision for themselves and their two dependent teenage children.
The Circuit Court refused on 6 October 2023 to rule the settlement and make the consent orders. R. appealed, seeking an early conclusion to put her affairs in order and safeguard the children’s future. The judgment says she has a serious illness and a bleak prognosis.
The settlement provides for the family home to be divided into six-tenths ownership for R. and four-tenths for M., then sold by 30 June 2029, corresponding with the expected completion of the younger child’s third-level education. If neither child undertakes or completes third-level education, the home is to be sold as soon as reasonably possible unless the parties agree otherwise. The spouses agreed to continue living separately in the home until sale.
Other terms include child maintenance of €100 per child per week, with M. also paying half of specified net uninsured expenses. The agreement provides for joint custody of a dependent child identified as A., nominal pension adjustment orders in each spouse’s favour, and withdrawal of R.’s pending safety-order application in the Dublin District Court. The judgment states that the actual pension adjustment orders may be made when ready.
The High Court considered whether the spouses’ plan to remain in the same home after divorce justified refusing the decree. It found that they had not lived together as an intimate and committed couple for years, despite sharing a dwelling. The court said the law did not require divorcing spouses to establish that they would live in separate dwellings afterwards. It also considered that their agreed arrangement could preserve stability for the children and reduce stress in a family affected by R.’s serious illness.
The court did not decide whether the statutory word “may” should be read as “shall” when the requirements for divorce are met. It proceeded on the basis that a discretion existed and found no good reason to refuse the decree. It granted the divorce and ancillary orders in the terms of the compromise. The judgment records liberty to apply in relation to the pension orders.