The High Court has refused a wife’s application for divorce but granted her a decree of judicial separation, finding that the statutory grounds for divorce were not met when proceedings began in June 2022.
In a judgment delivered on 3 June 2025, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson found that the parties did not begin living apart until autumn 2021. They had continued to share family life, including time in two homes and holidays with their child, before then. As a result, they had not lived apart for the two years required during the three years before the divorce proceedings were issued.
The judge found, however, that a normal marital relationship had ceased by late 2019. The parties had changed their sleeping arrangements that November, and their emotional and physical commitment to the marriage had ended, even as they continued to organise family life around their child. The court granted judicial separation under section 2(1)(f) of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989, through its jurisdiction under section 39(2) of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996.
The judgment said the parties shared care of their child and demonstrated strong co-parenting. The court ordered joint custody, with day-to-day arrangements to be agreed between them. It ordered the respondent to pay the applicant €750 a month for the child’s support. The parents are to share specified educational, medical, dental, optical and extracurricular expenses equally, with educational expenses above €500 requiring prior joint agreement.
For financial provision, the court declared that the respondent had no legal or beneficial interest in the applicant’s Meath residence. It treated €120,000 spent on mortgage reduction and renovations as a lump sum for the applicant. The court also declared the respondent’s ownership of his company shareholdings and his entitlement to the remaining director’s loan owed by EGLimited. The respondent must indemnify the applicant against sums companies claim she owes, or pay her an equivalent lump sum if such a claim is made.
The judge made no pension orders, leaving each party with their own provision, and granted mutual statutory orders subject to compliance with the court’s orders. The case was listed for mention on 27 June 2025 to address any further necessary orders and costs.