The High Court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant €30,000 by 1 April 2006 in an appeal about financial provision following divorce. Apart from that change, it affirmed the Circuit Court’s order.
Mr Justice O’Higgins gave judgment on 8 December 2005. The applicant husband appealed a Circuit Court order granting him a divorce on 19 April 2005. The High Court was satisfied that the parties had lived apart for at least four of the previous five years and that reconciliation was not reasonably possible. The remaining issue was whether proper provision had been made for both parties.
The parties married in 1968 and had four children, none dependent. A consent agreement made a court order in July 2000, during judicial separation proceedings. It provided for the family home to be transferred to the respondent and for her to pay the applicant IR£40,000 in two instalments. The agreement described its terms as full and final provision. The husband’s earlier attempt to have the settlement set aside had been refused; the High Court said its validity could not be revisited in this appeal.
The judge found the 2000 settlement had made proper provision at the time. The parties’ contributions to the home and finances, their earlier equal division of sale proceeds, and their intention to achieve finality all informed that assessment. But the consent terms did not bind the court in the divorce proceedings, and the court had to assess provision as of the appeal hearing. It gave the agreement “very considerable weight.”
Since 2000, the main change was the value of the home: it was valued at about €390,000 at the hearing, with a mortgage of approximately €80,000. The applicant lived in rented accommodation and argued that the respondent could increase her mortgage to help him buy a home. The judge was not satisfied that the proposed financing would be readily available and considered it unfair to require her to take on the additional debt or to order a sale of the property.
The judge also noted that the respondent had paid the larger share of the mortgage and had lived in the home since 1991, apart from a period away. However, the substantial rise in the home’s value could not be left out of account. The court ordered the €30,000 payment and otherwise affirmed the Circuit Court order.