The High Court granted a judicial separation to a wife on grounds of her husband’s admitted adultery and his behaviour, and ordered him to pay €18,000 a month in maintenance for her and their four dependent children.
In a judgment delivered on 13 March 2015, Mr Justice Keane rejected the husband’s application for separation. He found that the wife’s spending allegations against her and two incidents in which she struck him did not establish that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her. The court also rejected his claim that the marriage had lacked a normal marital relationship for the year before proceedings began.
The judge accepted the wife’s evidence that the couple continued to live as husband and wife and had sexual relations until October 2012. The husband had left the family home in November 2012, and proceedings were issued in January 2013, so the required one-year period had not elapsed.
The court found that the husband had engaged in repeated extra-marital relationships, including an affair with a close neighbour and the wife’s friend. On that basis, the wife was entitled to separation both for adultery and, in the alternative, because of his behaviour.
The court valued the net pool of matrimonial assets at about €7.47 million, after subtracting debts from assets valued at about €15.65 million. It valued the husband’s companies, including their cash reserves, at €8.5 million. The husband had average earnings of about €1.4 million a year from companies he controlled, while the wife had no independent income and limited future earning capacity after leaving paid work to care for the family.
The judge ordered gross monthly payments of €15,000 for the wife and €3,000 for the children. He declined to order a lump sum, but said the husband must transfer the holiday home and family home, including its contents, to the wife. The husband is to retain his home, companies, investment properties, bank accounts and share portfolio. The wife is to receive 50% of the benefit of his pension, and the husband must release or indemnify her from borrowing or guarantee obligations tied to the investment properties.
The husband was ordered to pay the children’s medical and dental expenses, including health insurance; the wife was ordered to meet their educational expenses. The judgment records an understanding that the parents agreed to joint custody, with the wife providing day-to-day care. The court did not resolve disputed access or educational arrangements, saying any unresolved issue should be brought back before the Family Division.
The judge said he would hear further submissions on whether additional relief was needed to secure the maintenance payments, whether cross-orders should be made, and the form of the final order. The judgment therefore set out the court’s findings and intended orders while leaving those matters for further consideration.