The High Court rejected claims that two alleged marriage settlements created trusts over family properties, and set out financial provision for a wife and their children in divorce proceedings. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Henry Abbott on 2 March 2012, said a divorce order would not issue until specified costs were paid into a joint account controlled by the parties’ solicitors.
The husband had applied for a divorce under the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996. The court considered claims based on a 1988 settlement deed and an alleged 1987 marriage settlement. It held the 1988 deed had no effect because the properties had not been vested in the trustees and the evidence did not establish an intention to create a trust. The judge said the deed had been kept as a device to shield assets from creditors. Claims by the wife and a notice party under that deed were dismissed.
The court also dismissed the husband’s claim concerning the alleged 1987 settlement. The judge found the evidence too uncertain to establish its terms or satisfy the Statute of Frauds. The other children, who had been joined as notice parties, withdrew claims under that heading.
The judgment addressed a prior judicial separation order made in 2005, which had required monthly payments to the wife and children, school fees and a lump sum, among other provisions. The judge said that contested order did not have the same binding force as an agreement accepted and acted on by both parties, though it remained relevant to the divorce decision.
The court noted the wife’s substantial debts and a 2011 order appointing a receiver in connection with a Bank of Ireland judgment. It declined to take over administration of that receivership. Instead, it directed the husband to pay the rent and utilities for the house the wife was renting in England, and provide a further €50,000 a year for other necessities and pocket money. Maintenance for the children was to continue as before.
The judge also found that the husband had engaged in contempt or abuse of process, including concealing the deed’s submission to Lloyds and unilaterally reducing maintenance. He directed payment into a joint solicitors’ account of taxed costs owing from the earlier proceedings and a provisional €1 million, including VAT, for the divorce proceedings. The divorce order would not issue until those sums were paid; costs of the wife’s ex parte Lloyds discovery application were excluded, and the award was reduced to reflect two days of hearing time.
If the husband failed to provide the ordered support within six months, the judgment directed that his assets be sold, the wife’s liabilities paid, and the remaining proceeds—after the husband’s debts—divided equally. It also specified continued responsibility for the children’s support and a 40% pension adjustment to the wife. The judgment concluded by asking counsel to address protection of the wife’s claims against the husband’s estate.