The High Court granted a decree of divorce to J.D.F. and C.F. in October 2011 after finding that they had lived apart for the required period, there was no reasonable prospect of reconciliation, and proper provision could be made for the family. In a supplemental judgment delivered on 13 December, Mr Justice Henry Abbott amended parts of that order after hearing further submissions, including on the Supreme Court’s decision in G. v. G.
The dispute followed years of judicial separation, appeals and enforcement proceedings. Earlier orders had provided for maintenance, the children’s care and a share of the husband’s pension for the wife. In the October judgment, the court set aside the earlier pension orders and proposed allocating 95% of the main S. pension fund to the wife and 5% to the husband, while allocating almost all of a separate additional voluntary contribution cash fund to the husband. Those proportions were later adjusted slightly for that cash fund.
In the supplemental judgment, the court said both parties were “hopelessly insolvent” and maintained its approach of making provision according to need within the statutory framework. It also found that the children’s living arrangements had changed: both daughters had moved to live with their father, although the younger daughter could stay with her mother at weekends and other times by choice and in consultation with her parents. The court ended the husband’s obligation to pay maintenance to the wife or either daughter, while requiring him to meet the children’s medical, dental and extracurricular costs and the younger daughter’s school fees.
The supplemental order gave each spouse a right to reside in their respective homes, with the wife entitled to a dwelling she purchased, rented or leased within the court’s jurisdiction. It replaced the proposed pension allocation for the additional voluntary contribution fund with 99% for the husband and 1% for the wife, while retaining the proposed 5%/95% division of the separate S. pension fund. If the funds were not separate, one order was to produce the same overall result. The wife was directed to formalise the pension orders within three months.
The court also stayed arrears of maintenance, subject to the husband complying with the judgment within three calendar months; if the stay lapsed, the wife could apply for judgment. Either party may seek a lump sum equal to 20% of the other’s inheritance, net of enforceable debts, taxes and expenses, if received within ten years. The court made no order as to costs. Its order recognised the eldest daughter’s movements as her own choice and allowed the younger daughter to stay with her mother on the stated terms.