The High Court has discharged an order requiring a respondent to pay his former spouse €385 a month in maintenance, following his appeal of a Circuit Family Court decision that had reduced the payment slightly.
Ms Justice Nuala Jackson delivered the ex tempore judgment on 28 March 2024. The order was discharged from the date of the High Court order. The judge refused the respondent’s request to recover maintenance already paid and made no further orders.
The original periodic maintenance order was made in 2005 as part of divorce-related orders and covered the applicant and the couple’s dependent children. The children are now legally non-dependent, and the only maintenance still being paid was for the applicant. The Circuit Family Court reduced it from €88.87 a week to €80 a week in December 2023. That reduction did not appear to have taken effect, and deductions from the respondent’s pension continued at €385 a month.
The judge found that circumstances had materially changed since 2005. The applicant, who had worked within the home caring for the children, had been in paid employment outside the home since September 2023. Her monthly employment income was €3,299.18, with €2,068.29 remaining after mortgage costs. The respondent’s assessed monthly income, including pension and social welfare, was €2,721.18, with €1,933.43 remaining after mortgage costs.
The judge also considered the parties’ housing and other financial circumstances. Each alleged that the other had income from accommodation. The respondent denied regular rental income from his home; the applicant said she no longer earned from student homestays. The judge considered it likely both had some additional income, or the potential to earn it, from accommodation. She said there was no evidence on which to determine the applicant’s allegation that the respondent had a bookmaker account.
The judgment considered the respondent’s retirement and a 2005 consent term under which the applicant waived an interest in his pension. The judge said the waiver was relevant, but all of the parties’ financial circumstances had to be assessed. She also noted that the respondent’s maintenance obligation had been included in a personal insolvency arrangement entered in 2019. The limited evidence did not prevent the court from considering changed circumstances; any resulting material change for the arrangement was a matter to be addressed under the applicable insolvency rules.
The judge concluded that maintenance was not appropriate on the parties’ current circumstances, given the applicant’s higher income and higher income after accommodation costs. She noted that periodic maintenance orders remain open to review.