The High Court granted a judicial separation to C.D. and P.D., ordering the respondent to pay €10,000 a month in net maintenance and to transfer his interest in the family home to the applicant. The judgment, delivered on 15 March 2006, records that a normal marital relationship had not existed for at least 12 months before the application was brought.
The applicant sought judicial separation and related relief by special summons dated 21 July 2005. The respondent also sought separation and related relief in a replying affidavit. The court said there was no hope of reconciliation and that the statutory requirements for separation had been met, subject to proper provision. It found that work pressures had been a significant factor in the marriage breakdown and said neither party was at fault.
The parties agreed to joint custody of their three children, with the applicant as primary carer and the children residing with her. The court ordered custody on the access terms set out in the judgment, including alternate weekend and midweek contact, shared holidays and continued family therapy.
The court assessed the parties’ net assets at about €6.28 million. It rejected both parties’ financial proposals as a basis for its decision. The applicant had proposed, among other terms, maintenance of €300,000 gross annually for herself and €75,000 net for the children. The court considered those sums unrealistic in light of the respondent’s debt-servicing obligations. It also found the respondent’s proposal inadequate, saying it did not sufficiently account for his future earning capacity or the applicant’s continuing care of the children.
The orders include the applicant receiving sole ownership of the family home and its contents, while transferring her interest in another Dublin property to the respondent. The respondent must pay €10,000 net monthly maintenance, indexed to the consumer price index; the court said it would hear counsel on how that sum should be divided between the applicant and the children. The respondent must also pay €500,000 in instalments, replace the applicant’s car every three years with one of similar standard, cover the children’s education costs and maintain health insurance for the applicant and children at the existing level. An insurance policy must be put in place to guarantee maintenance, with implementation details to be addressed by counsel.
The court declined to extinguish the applicant’s Succession Act rights at this stage, citing uncertainty about the respondent’s future finances and the applicant’s stated intention to seek divorce later. It said it would discuss the form of the orders with counsel.