The High Court granted a decree of judicial separation to H.N. and B.N. after finding that their marriage had broken down and that a normal marital relationship had not existed for at least a year before the application. In a judgment delivered on 27 April 2016, Mr Justice Keane set out proposed orders for dividing their assets and said he would hear the parties on the appropriate form of order.
The main asset was a farm of about 211 acres, transferred by the wife’s late father to her in 2005 and later placed in the joint names of the spouses. The wife’s mother and brother have rights connected to the farm, including residence and support rights for the mother and livestock and accommodation rights for the brother. The judgment said those interests had to be considered when making provision for the spouses.
The husband proposed selling the farmlands, transferring the farmhouse to the wife subject to the family’s residence rights, and dividing the sale proceeds. The wife’s position, as the court understood it from her submissions and evidence, was that she should retain the farm and sell 50 acres to fund a lump sum for the husband. The court rejected that proposal, finding the projected income from the reduced holding unrealistic and concluding that the wife would be left with obligations she could not sustain. It also rejected an equal division, given the farm’s origin as the wife’s family asset and the husband’s contributions to the farming enterprise.
The court proposed that the farmhouse and its surrounding yard and curtilage be transferred to the wife, subject to the mother’s and brother’s residence rights, and that the farmlands be sold. From the sale proceeds, the proposed orders would pay the mother and brother the capital value of specified rights, cover the mother’s reasonable legal costs, and provide the husband with a €1 million lump sum. He would also retain the house in town. The wife would receive the remaining proceeds and farm assets and liabilities, and take sole ownership of the farmhouse subject to the third-party rights.
The judgment estimated the husband would have assets of €867,000 after his legal costs, about 32.7% of the net matrimonial assets under the proposed division. These were proposed terms: the judge said he would hear the parties on the order needed to reflect the judgment.
The court also ruled that the husband could not pursue, within these separation proceedings, a claim alleging misconduct by the wife’s mother and brother that might extinguish their asserted rights. The judge said the issue was procedurally unfair in this case and could be pursued in separate, properly constituted proceedings. The court did not decide the legal validity or factual merits of that claim.