The High Court found that a judicial separation should be granted to a couple identified in the judgment by fictional initials, and set out proposed financial and property orders. It adjourned further consideration so counsel could address how to implement those proposals and any necessary ancillary orders. The judgment does not record a final order in the proceedings.
The spouses married in 1998 and have four children, born between 1999 and 2005. The court said they had lived apart since 2009 and that a normal marital relationship had not existed for more than a year before the proceedings began. Arrangements concerning the children’s welfare had been made during the case.
In assessing provision, the judge considered the family’s needs, the spouses’ resources and their contributions. The wife was a homemaker and received €600 a month net in maintenance, while the husband’s estimated annual income was €84,113. The court said that the additional household bills and outgoings he had been meeting, estimated at up to €30,000 a year, could not be sustained alongside his tax obligations and business needs.
The judgment proposed transferring the husband’s interest in the family home at M. to the wife, and the wife’s interest in C.H. to the husband. It also proposed property adjustments involving plots A, B and C, subject to agreement or further court consideration of rights of way. The court directed that the B lands be sold to help discharge the husband’s Revenue debt, with the net balance going to him; if they were not sold within six months because of his failure or neglect, the court would consider a further adjustment to facilitate sale.
The proposed maintenance was €4,000 a month gross to the wife, on the basis that she had separate tax registration and was the primary carer. The judge proposed no separate child maintenance order beyond a nominal amount, subject to consultation. The proposed order would not be reviewed downwards solely because the wife obtained work unless her gross income exceeded €30,000 a year. The court also proposed that the husband continue paying VHI and permitted the wife to use an insurance policy as security for borrowing up to €100,000, subject to the terms set out in the judgment.
The judge proposed refusing applications to extinguish succession rights. Further submissions were invited on preserving contingent pension rights. No party-and-party costs order was proposed, subject to counsel’s submissions. The judgment also proposed adjustments involving the German investment and an investment-linked insurance policy, including payments back to the husband when they matured in 2018.