The High Court ordered the transfer of an additional field valued at €200,000 as part of financial provision in divorce proceedings between an anonymised couple. The order supplemented proposals made by the respondent, which the judge considered alongside provision for the couple’s dependent child.
In a judgment delivered on 13 December 2005, de Valera J. found that the spouses had lived separate and apart within the meaning of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 and that there was no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The judgment addresses financial provision and arrangements for their youngest child, who remained dependent. It does not state that a decree of divorce was granted.
The respondent had proposed, subject to the applicant succeeding in the divorce proceedings, to transfer C. L. to her and pay off its remaining mortgage. The proposal also included a 10-acre field immediately behind C. L., and €150,000: €80,000 to clear the mortgage, with the remaining €70,000 paid at €10,000 a year for seven years.
The applicant told the court that a further roughly 10 acres would help her continue her bloodstock work. She said that, together with other income-generating plans, including Japanese therapy, it would allow her to support an independent life. The judge ordered the transfer of field 007, across a laneway from the other 10-acre field. Although there was no direct valuation evidence for field 007, the judge considered it worth €200,000 because of its position.
The judgment records that the respondent’s farm comprised parcels of 57 acres at B. and 168 acres at A. The court set values of €650,000 for the B. lands, €2.5 million for A. H. and its lands, and €600,000 for C. L. The judge noted the lands had been in the respondent’s family for generations and that the applicant had not contributed to their acquisition or improvement, but said their value had become secondary in light of the respondent’s proposals.
The parties agreed to joint custody of I. while he remained a minor. The judge was satisfied that the arrangements already provided for I. would ensure proper provision during minority and any later period of dependency, such as third-level education.