The High Court granted a divorce to a long-married couple identified in the judgment only as Ms A and Mr A, and set out financial provision for them. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 2 June 2022, asked the parties to agree a form of order reflecting its terms. It also left open whether to hear an argument about changes in share and pension values before making final orders, and reserved costs for later consideration.
The proceedings began with Ms A’s application for judicial separation. Mr A started divorce proceedings shortly before the hearing, and both parties agreed that the court could deal with the applications in the same judgment. The judge said the parties met the criteria for divorce, wanted a decree and he would grant it. The written judgment describes the orders he intended to make; it also anticipates a later written order and does not record that every transfer or payment had already been completed.
The judge said the couple had worked as a team over several decades, with Mr A largely the main earner and Ms A largely a homemaker. He found that her years outside the workforce had reduced her earning prospects, while her work at home had helped Mr A pursue his career. Aiming at roughly equal provision, he stressed that proper provision did not require a precise half-and-half division of every asset.
The intended property orders would transfer the family home, one Irish apartment and a property in another EU member state to Ms A, and the second Irish apartment to Mr A. The judge also proposed dividing damages relating to that apartment equally, setting aside a higher sum for possible proceedings in the other EU state, and dividing the pension funds so each spouse received an equal share of their combined value. Mr A would retain his shares portfolio, while an equalising payment would be made to Ms A in relation to the pensions and bank funds.
The court rejected Mr A’s proposed clean break and further reduction in maintenance. It proposed annual lump-sum payments up to his retirement, calculated to provide Ms A with a specified net monthly amount, followed by grossed-up monthly maintenance at a level producing the same net amount. The judge said that maintenance might need review if Mr A did not work after retirement or earned substantially less. The amounts are redacted in the public judgment to protect the parties’ privacy.
The judgment did not make an order over Mr A’s death-in-service benefit, which the judge understood to be outside the court’s jurisdiction. He said he would consider an agreed alternative arrangement before issuing the final order. He also said that, if Mr A wished, the court would hear the parties on whether recent market movements justified revisiting share or pension valuations.