The High Court refused Ms A’s requests to have Mr A found in contempt and to obtain further financial disclosure, but increased the monthly maintenance he must pay her and imposed restrictions on his pension fund while arrears remain outstanding.
In a judgment delivered on 14 March 2023, Mr Justice Max Barrett considered Mr A’s appeal concerning orders made in ongoing Circuit Court family proceedings. The couple are identified in the judgment only as Mr A and Ms A. They have four children, two of whom have particular needs.
Ms A alleged that Mr A had failed to comply with orders concerning share-sale proceeds and discovery of financial records. The judge found no contempt. He said the proceeds had been released so Mr A could deal with Revenue and a bank, but the proposals he made were not accepted. The funds remained in his solicitors’ client account, subject to an undertaking that they would be retained until the proceedings concluded.
The judge said extensive disclosure had already been provided, including available bank records and explanations where requested historical documents could not be generated. He refused further discovery requests, finding some too broad or unnecessary in light of material already disclosed. He noted that Mr A could be questioned about relevant matters in the Circuit Court proceedings. The court’s task on the motion was to decide whether further discovery should be ordered, not to determine the merits of all the underlying financial issues.
On maintenance, the judge said Mr A had not complied with the existing order for some years. Direct payments to the children did not replace court-ordered payments to Ms A. He found no basis to reduce maintenance and increased the monthly amount by a sum redacted in the judgment. Payments Mr A made to the children may be deducted from arrears only if evidence shows the money was passed on to Ms A.
Pending payment of the outstanding maintenance, the judge ordered that Mr A make no dealings with his pension fund apart from ordinary contributions, and directed him to tell Ms A’s solicitors by 1 May 2023 how he intended to pay the remaining arrears. He proposed that money held in his solicitors’ client account be paid directly to Ms A toward arrears, but said the parties could make further submissions because that proposal had not been expressly argued at the appeal. Costs were left for consideration after payment of the outstanding maintenance.