The High Court has ordered the sale of a former couple’s family home and divided their savings equally after hearing an appeal arising from divorce proceedings that began in 2017.
In a judgment delivered on 25 November 2024, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson said the case had taken an “entirely unacceptable” seven and a half years to reach a hearing. She found that substantial responsibility for the delay rested with S.B., the respondent and appellant, while acknowledging that the Covid-19 pandemic caused some delay and that F.F. had not used available procedures to press the case between 2017 and 2020.
The Circuit Family Court had granted a divorce decree and ancillary relief on 9 October 2024. On appeal, the High Court granted the decree on S.B.’s counterclaim, saying the judge was uncertain about the parties’ circumstances before their de facto separation in 2016. By 2021, however, they had lived apart for more than four years with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.
The High Court declared that the parties hold the family home as tenants in common in equal shares, pending its sale or transfer. It ordered the property to be put on the open market by 1 January 2025 at the latest, with the sale process managed by an agreed estate agent and neither party to impede it. S.B. was ordered to vacate, but that order was stayed, with liberty to apply to lift the stay.
S.B. may buy the home if, within 14 days of the judgment, he provides F.F.’s solicitors with fully vouched documentary details of the financial arrangements and resources available to him. Any purchase must take place through the usual open-market sale process.
The judge ordered no maintenance between the parties and allowed each to retain their own pension. Their specified savings are to be divided equally. S.B.’s share is also to cover an existing costs order in F.F.’s favour and half of an €18,396 loan relating to rent arrears owed to the estate of F.F.’s brother, who is a ward of court. The judge treated F.F.’s rental costs since separation as a joint responsibility because S.B. had been living in the unencumbered family home.
The parties were declared equally entitled to the home’s contents, except for items S.B. bought after separation, which belong to him. The matter was listed for mention on 4 February 2025 to assess progress on the home-related orders.