The High Court changed a Circuit Court judicial separation order, directing that the wife receive a €300,000 lump sum from the net proceeds of sale of the family home and an 80/20 pension adjustment in her favour. It directed that the remaining funds go to the husband after specified creditor settlements, and left child access arrangements for further consideration.
The appeal concerned an order made by Judge Martin Nolan on 27 February 2002. That order provided for the sale of the heavily indebted family home, set aside €450,000 to buy a home for the wife and three dependent children, and provided for the husband to receive €100,000 and a share of any balance. The High Court’s judgment is dated 16 March 2013 and bears the neutral citation [2013] IEHC 655.
The High Court said the wife had a gross annual salary of €46,000 and was supporting the children without financial assistance from the husband, who was unemployed and heavily indebted. It considered that buying a house for just over €400,000 would leave the wife with too little for household costs and other expenses, and concluded that renting was more practical for her and the children. The court nevertheless recognised their accommodation needs and ordered that the wife have the right to reside in a property she rents, excluding the husband.
The judge also considered the husband’s debts and evidence that he hoped to resume work in property and pursue international arbitration. The court said the financial provision gave him an opportunity to address debts and rebuild his prospects, while recognising the risk that this plan might fail. The judgment described the outcome as a “break or bust” arrangement.
Under the order outlined by the High Court, the wife’s solicitor was to pay her €300,000 from the sale proceeds, with credit for €5,000 already ordered to be paid to each party at the end of the appeal hearing. The solicitor was also directed to pay compromised sums to two creditors, identified in the judgment as Mr B and Mr G, from the husband’s share, before paying him the remaining funds. The husband was entitled to sell the furniture and keep the proceeds. There was no order as to costs.
The High Court did not finally settle access arrangements. It said custody and access would continue until altered or affirmed after the court heard from the children and considered the parties’ submissions. The judge also said the order should include an 80/20 pension adjustment in the wife’s favour. The judgment concluded that, overall, the revised arrangement was fairer and more sustainable than the Circuit Court order.