The High Court varied parts of a Circuit Court order in a family-law appeal, reallocating two properties and increasing a payment due to the wife. It found the husband had concealed assets, but said the Circuit Court’s order left him with virtually nothing and went further than necessary.
Mr Justice Binchy’s judgment, delivered on 13 December 2017, concerned the husband’s appeal against the entirety of an order made on 20 April 2016. The couple, who married in 1994 and have three children, had accumulated several properties and savings during the marriage. The appeal judgment refers to the parties only as T.M. and N.M.
The judge found the husband’s explanations for transactions through accounts belonging to his brother and sister unconvincing. He inferred that money lodged in the brother’s account belonged to the husband and that the husband probably received €100,000 in cash withdrawals from it and still had access to those funds. The judge rejected the possibility that the husband had made a second, separate payment of about £102,480 to his brother, finding that explanation highly unlikely.
The court described the husband’s overall conduct as evasion and concealment. It also noted that the wife had taken unilateral financial steps, including drawing down €45,000, but accepted that she did so to meet household costs, mortgage payments and childcare expenses. The judge said the family’s assets had been built through the efforts of both spouses.
The High Court ordered the husband to transfer the five-bedroom Property No. 2 to the wife and vacate it by 28 February 2018. The wife was to transfer her interest in Property No. 1 to the husband and give him vacant possession by the same date. Although title to Property No. 1 was to pass to the wife subject to the secured loans, responsibility for repayment between the spouses was assigned solely to the husband. If he fell at least six months behind, the wife could arrange a sale under the terms set out in the judgment. The judge said the husband could instead refinance the loan in his sole name and secure the wife’s release from liability.
The court replaced the Circuit Court’s €20,000 payment order with an order for the husband to pay €75,000 by 30 June 2018. If unpaid, the wife could take judgment and enforce it through a sale of Property No. 1. The husband was also ordered to pay €200 monthly toward an education fund, split equally between the children. The wife was to hold the money in trust and provide quarterly account statements on request.
Other specified Circuit Court orders were affirmed. The High Court adjourned the remaining issue about access to one child until it could hear the child’s views. It did not decide that issue in this judgment.