The High Court has allowed documents allegedly removed by an applicant in judicial separation proceedings to be used by her forensic accountant in preparing a financial report. The ruling concerns the admissibility of material for that purpose; it does not decide the financial issues in the separation case or make a final finding on the applicant’s conduct.
The respondent had filed an affidavit of means, but the applicant said it did not disclose the full extent of the respondent’s assets and engaged a forensic accountant. In a motion dated 18 November 2013, the applicant sought to strike out the respondent’s defence, alleging non-compliance with a court order, inadequate financial disclosure and litigation misconduct.
During the hearing, the applicant objected to parts of the accountant’s affidavit relating to documents she had obtained. The judgment records that the applicant admitted in a June 2014 affidavit that she had taken some documents and removed others from the respondent’s computer using a USB stick. The respondent alleged the material had been taken illegally and had prepared a motion seeking an injunction against its use and an order for its return.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the material was inadmissible, relying on Irish and English authorities concerning documents obtained through alleged wrongdoing. The respondent’s counsel argued that the case had reached a more advanced stage of financial disclosure and that Irish family law required a balance between the alleged privacy breach and the need to establish what assets were available.
Mr Justice Henry Abbott rejected the objection. He considered the respondent’s disclosure obligation more advanced than in the English case of *Imerman v. Imerman* and treated *P. v. Q.* as the more relevant authority for balancing competing interests in family litigation. He said financial provision under the Irish statutory framework must be considered alongside the interests of the parties and children. The ruling does not establish that the alleged removal was lawful.
The court directed that the applicant return the original documents to the respondent, who was then to disclose them and hand them back to the applicant. The applicant may keep copies. The USB stick or other electronic device is to be kept by the Court Registrar until an expert can analyse it and reproduce material on terms agreed by the parties.
The judge said the applicant’s conduct, including the removal and its later admission, remained to be addressed. The parties could make submissions on costs as a balancing measure, without prejudice to any other measure the trial judge might consider. The court also discouraged further self-help activity and said it might prompt an *Imerman* approach or sterner action.