The Court of Appeal dismissed a husband’s challenge to divorce and financial orders made in long-running proceedings, but reduced the pension transfer to his former wife from €450,000 to €300,000. It also set aside an order that he pay all her High Court costs and directed him to pay half.
The judgment, delivered on 3 December 2015, concerned an appeal from High Court orders made in 2012 and 2013. The Court of Appeal held that it was bound by earlier Supreme Court rulings in the same case, which had rejected the husband’s arguments about recognition in Ireland of a divorce granted in another EU member state and his related EU-law challenges. It declined to revisit those matters or make a further reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The parties, identified in the judgment as T. and L., married in Dublin in 1980 and have three adult children. They lived in another EU member state from 1987 to 1992. A court there granted a divorce in September 1994, but Irish courts later refused to recognise it in Ireland. The wife began Irish proceedings in 2000, seeking judicial separation or, alternatively, divorce and financial orders. The High Court granted a divorce and made financial orders after a hearing in 2010.
The husband argued that the High Court had given too little weight to a 1994 agreement intended to settle claims between the parties. The Court of Appeal said such an agreement must receive substantial weight, but the court still had to decide whether it had made proper provision. It upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the agreement had not adequately addressed the wife’s future maintenance and pension needs.
The Court of Appeal left in place the order for €5,000 gross monthly maintenance. It found the €450,000 pension transfer excessive in light of the increased maintenance award and substituted €300,000. It rejected the wife’s cross-appeal seeking a further lump sum to buy a house, accepting the High Court’s view that her assets and increased maintenance should enable a purchase in a favourable market.
The costs order was changed because the husband had not been given an opportunity to make submissions on costs. The appeal court nevertheless considered the lengthy jurisdiction challenges and their effect on delay, and ordered him to pay half the wife’s High Court costs, to be assessed if the parties could not agree.