The Supreme Court has allowed a husband’s appeal over a €2.853 million lump sum ordered in a judicial separation case, after a sharp fall in agricultural land values undermined the assumptions behind the High Court’s financial arrangements.
The Court set aside the lump sum order but affirmed the sale of 205 acres of farmland owned by the husband. It remitted the matter to the High Court to make any further orders concerning the sale and, once it is completed, determine how the assets should be divided to give each spouse an equal share. The Supreme Court did not determine the land’s current value or set a replacement lump sum.
The parties married in 1984 and have three children. At the time of the High Court order, one child was dependent. The High Court granted a decree of judicial separation in 2008 and aimed to divide the assets equally. It ordered the husband to pay the wife €2.853 million, with the payment to be funded by selling enough of his land in County Tipperary.
The appeal focused on the fall in property values since that decision. The husband sought to put forward evidence of later events, saying the land values used by the High Court could no longer support the planned payment. He deposed that 205 acres previously valued at €28,000 an acre were then worth about €7,800 an acre. The Supreme Court accepted that agricultural land values had fallen sharply, but said it had only the husband’s figures and could not determine the land’s current value.
The wife opposed reopening the financial arrangements on the basis of subsequent price changes. Her counsel argued that the Supreme Court’s role was corrective and that later falls in value were not a proper basis for intervention. The wife had transferred her interests in the family home, a bungalow and 32 acres, and a company to the husband under the High Court orders. At the appeal hearing, she offered to accept up to €1.9 million from a sale of the land, or less if the sale raised less.
The Supreme Court held that the new evidence concerned material events after the High Court decision and should be admitted and given weight. It said the original scheme for achieving equality through a lump sum funded by land sales could not be performed as planned because the assumptions about land values had collapsed. The principle of equal division was not under appeal and remained in place.
The High Court must now establish the land’s value and determine the division, including any lump sum for the wife. The Supreme Court also said agreement or mediation would benefit the parties and their children.