The High Court allowed a husband’s appeal in divorce proceedings and ordered him to pay his former wife €25,000, citing her immediate need for surgery and a future pension disadvantage. It also set valuations for three properties and left each party in possession of the home they occupied, with the farm remaining with the husband.
Mr Justice Barr delivered the judgment on 22 March 2018. The appeal concerned a Circuit Court order made on 9 November 2017. The High Court found that the Circuit Court order had failed to make proper provision for the husband and the dependent child, G. It affirmed the divorce decree and a separate order made under section 18(10) of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996.
The court valued the husband’s home at €130,000, the farm at €70,000 and the wife’s home at €65,000. The judgment referred to uncertainty about planning permission for an extension at the husband’s home, rural property sales and limits on forestry use of the farm. It described the wife’s home as a three-bedroom property, although one bedroom could only be reached through another.
The court decided that the parties’ accommodation arrangements should continue. The husband retained possession of his home and the farm; the wife retained possession of her home. The judge said the existing accommodation best served the needs of G., who has a disability and lives with the husband.
The court ordered the husband to pay €10,000 to address the wife’s immediate needs, including surgery and recovery time. It awarded a further €15,000 in view of her expected disadvantage in receiving a contributory old-age pension, linked to time she had spent caring for the children. The judgment said the husband could source the €25,000 through a property sale or a loan.
The judge also considered evidence about €15,282 in disability allowance arrears belonging to G. The wife denied taking the money for herself but accepted that a payment of €7,800 had gone to a credit-card account in her name. The court was satisfied that she had used the monies for her own purposes. It noted, however, that the money belonged to G. and had not depleted the parties’ assets available for proper provision.