The High Court granted a decree of divorce and mutual orders under section 18(10), while varying two instalments in financial orders made during the parties’ judicial-separation proceedings.
The judgment, delivered by White Michael J., followed a hearing on 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 21 June 2013. The parties are identified in the judgment as D. J. and M. K. J. They married in 1985 and have two children, identified as A and B.
In July 2010, the High Court transferred the family home to the respondent free of mortgage and made periodic maintenance, pension-adjustment and financial-compensation orders. It also ordered the applicant to pay lump sums by instalments. The applicant later sought to vary those orders, citing reduced investments, lower company asset values and trading difficulties. The respondent opposed reopening the financial provision and, at the divorce hearing, sought to maintain the existing orders.
The court said the 2010 orders remained workable. It found that the applicant faced greater financial pressure but retained considerable net worth and had been able to buy a residence without a mortgage. The judgment records that he did not pay a €135,000 instalment due on 9 December 2011, but later spent €449,245 on a new dwelling. The court considered that unreasonable, while also criticising the respondent’s approach to the divorce proceedings and finding that both parties had acted unreasonably.
Applying the test cited from an earlier High Court decision, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to some variation because of his financial pressures. It reduced the €135,000 instalment due on or before 9 June 2013 to €67,500, taking account of his responsibility under the earlier order for the children’s third-level education fees and expenses. The revised amount was made payable by 1 April 2014. The court also extended the next instalment’s payment date to 9 June 2015.
The judgment did not specify a revised amount for that next instalment. The court said it wished to hear submissions about possible security for instalments due in 2015 and 2016, and recommended greater precision in part of the 2010 order. The text records no final ruling on security. The other provisions of the earlier orders were not substantially reopened.