The High Court granted a judicial separation decree to Ms D in a family law case in which the judge found that her husband, Mr D, had made false statements about his finances and continued spending company funds on personal entertainment.
Mr Justice Max Barrett said the couple had jointly built and operated a successful business in [Country A], although the company was legally owned by Mr D and a sibling. The judge accepted that Ms D had contributed to the business, including its operations and start-up costs, and had a beneficial interest in the business and a related venture.
The judgment said a forensic accountant found that, from April to August 2022, Mr D’s “anomalous expenditure” averaged close to €16,000 a month. The judge found that company funds had not been properly recorded and that accounts filed in [Country A] did not accurately show the company’s financial position. He also found that Mr D’s affidavits of means, dated 15 November 2021 and 15 November 2022, contained falsehoods, particularly about income and expenditure. Mr D did not give oral evidence.
The couple moved to Ireland with their dependent children, while Mr D remained in [Country A] and continued helping with the business. Their relationship deteriorated around November 2020. The court heard that Ms D had been seriously ill and that an external HR company repeatedly contacted her about documenting her illness and taking part in a disciplinary process. The judge described the treatment as harassment and criticised Mr D’s conduct during that period.
In assessing the finances, the judge relied more on the evidence of Ms D’s forensic accountant than on the husband’s expert, citing concerns about the information Mr D had supplied and the company’s unreliable accounts. The judgment notes that the parties owned residential and development land in Ireland, and that the business valuation was affected by understated profits. It does not set out the final financial terms in the supplied text: the judge referred to orders in Appendix 2, which is not included here.
The judge said he would make the decree and the indicated financial and custody orders, but would first give a psychologist who had reported in the case a copy of the judgment to consider whether to add anything about access arrangements. He also said he would make ancillary orders, including a declaration that the children’s habitual residence was in Ireland. The parties were to be heard on costs. The judgment stated that it would not be made public at that time, citing the possibility of a criminal investigation in [Country A] and Mr D’s rights under that country’s criminal law.