The High Court refused a husband’s application to sell the former family home and divide the proceeds, holding that doing so would not serve the interests of justice. The court postponed making its formal order while the parties had an opportunity to complete the transfer and payment set out in an earlier separation order.
The dispute followed a 1996 judicial separation order. It gave the wife lifetime occupation of the family home and required her to transfer €12,700, the euro equivalent of £10,000, to the husband in return for his legal and beneficial interest. The order also dispensed with his consent to a future sale by her. The home’s location is anonymised in the judgment.
The husband sought a sale and a share of the net proceeds, or alternatively a further lump sum. He argued that changed circumstances and the increased value of the home made a sale and a fair division appropriate. The wife opposed the application, saying a sale would displace her and the children living with her. She sought to remain in the home and pay the original lump sum.
The judgment records that both parties had limited means. The husband reported social welfare income and hostel accommodation; the wife reported social welfare payments and part-time earnings, with expenses that used up her income. The court considered their housing needs, contributions, earning capacity and the children’s need for stability. It concluded that a sale could leave both parties less secure and that the wife could not readily obtain alternative housing.
Justice Henry Abbott said the 1996 property adjustment order could not be varied under section 18 of the Family Law Act 1995. He nevertheless considered whether a further, “strategic” order could be made after a fundamental change in circumstances. The court found that the increased value warranted considering such an application, but concluded that a sale or changed division would be unfair in the circumstances and was not in the interests of justice.
The court therefore refused the husband’s application. It did not make the formal order immediately: the judge allowed time for payment of the existing lump sum, updated with court interest, and transfer of the husband’s share. The judgment invited counsel to address costs. If the parties did not resolve matters during the adjournment, the judge proposed that further applications be sent back to the Circuit Court. The judgment does not state a final costs order or confirm that the transfer and payment were completed.