The High Court ordered a respondent in divorce proceedings to provide further financial and company records after finding that parts of an earlier discovery order had not been complied with. The court set a 10-day deadline for the specified documents and affidavits.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon on 8 May 2015, concerns an application by the applicant, S.C., in proceedings against J.B. The couple married in 2001 and have three dependent children. They signed a deed of separation in December 2010, which included arrangements for property, child maintenance and education costs. The deed provided for no spousal maintenance.
The applicant alleged that the respondent had undervalued shares held by a family trust and failed to disclose relevant financial information before the deed was signed. She also argued that he had not fully complied with a discovery order made in the divorce proceedings. The respondent disputed the breadth of the further disclosure sought and said some records concerned separate companies or were outside his control.
The court did not determine whether material non-disclosure had occurred before the separation deed. It said that question would be determined at trial. The application before it concerned compliance with the existing discovery order and which additional records should be disclosed.
On compliance, the court found outstanding or incomplete material in several categories. It directed the respondent to provide any missing bank statements for D Ltd and updated statements for its accounts; attachments to emails concerning the mortgage for a property in Leinster; specified bank and loan account records; and a further affidavit from Mr R setting out payments and directorships relating to the respondent. It also found that Mr M’s affidavit did not adequately explain income, payments and an identified discrepancy, and directed that the specified information be provided.
The respondent was also ordered to provide the complete exhibits and documents referred to in a share purchase agreement, records supporting expenditure on the Leinster property, its deed of purchase, and an Ulster Bank letter summarising account activity and balances for the period specified by the court. The court identified a route to third-party discovery for an affidavit from Mr P, who had refused to swear one.
For the additional Schedule II requests, the court ordered disclosure of specified material relating to companies connected with the respondent, the B Trust, an annual bonus, an overseas bank account and reimbursed foreign expenses. It limited some requests, including company meeting minutes, to dealings involving the respondent or entities with which he had an interest or relationship. Other material concerning the A Group was left to third-party discovery. The court also ordered specified records about AH Ltd, while leaving the remainder of the requested AH Ltd material to third-party discovery.
The directions addressed disclosure only. The judgment did not decide the applicant’s underlying claim for further financial provision or make findings on the alleged earlier misrepresentations.