The High Court has ordered that judgments in family-law proceedings may be disclosed to the respondent’s bankruptcy trustee and the Workplace Relations Commission, saying disclosure was needed to protect the legitimate interests of his wife and children.
Mr Justice Max Barrett made the order under section 40(8) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 in a judgment delivered on 2 February 2024. The hearing took place on 31 January, following an earlier judgment in which the judge had indicated he proposed to publish previous judgments in the case.
The court also allowed disclosure of its judgments to courts or court services in the respondent’s home country if proceedings are commenced there. The judge said no application had yet been made to those courts, so a separate future application would be necessary before that disclosure could take place.
The judge said the wife and children could be exposed to injustice if the respondent were finally adjudicated bankrupt abroad while the insolvency service there lacked information about findings in the Irish family-law proceedings. He referred to the wife’s circumstances, including that she had moved with the children to live with relatives, and to the children’s interests in receiving maintenance and medical and dental care previously ordered by the court.
The judgment records that the respondent’s counsel asked the court to defer matters until the foreign bankruptcy proceedings had concluded. The judge rejected that submission. He also recorded that the wife’s counsel said she did not seek redactions to any of the judgments, while it was unclear whether the respondent would seek them.
Public release remains subject to a further opportunity for the parties to request redactions. They were given until 14 February to make written submissions on that issue, and the judge said he might hear them briefly during February. He specified that no redactions would apply to judgments disclosed under section 40(8).
The court did not decide the wife’s request for a declaration that she had a beneficial interest in certain property. The judge directed that any such application be brought by motion at an agreed hearing date. The judgment does not determine the outcome of that application.