The High Court directed that a wife receive €115,000 more than her husband from the net proceeds of selling their jointly owned land as part of a judicial separation case. It also ordered an equal division of the husband’s pension and left the form of the court order to be discussed with counsel.
Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan delivered the judgment on 23 May 2008. The husband began proceedings in December 2004. The court said the statutory requirements for a judicial separation decree had been met and, as there were no dependent children, its role was to ensure proper provision for both spouses.
The couple married in Belgium in 1976 and had one daughter, who was 26 and financially independent at the time of judgment. The husband was a chef and the wife a care worker. Their main asset was land they jointly owned, valued at €1 million in October 2007. An offer of €1.4 million in 2006 had been refused.
The husband owned a two-bedroom apartment valued at €280,000, subject to a €240,000 mortgage. A share portfolio worth €150,000 when the parties separated had since been used to support business ventures and buy the apartment. The judgment records a bank debt of about €100,000 and an outstanding court judgment of more than €200,000 against a former business partner. The husband expected to recover that sum, though his solicitor was less confident.
The wife had been living in rented accommodation since leaving the former family home, which the couple had occupied as caretakers through the husband’s employment. She had paid a €5,000 booking deposit on a proposed €345,000 property purchase, dependent on selling the land. The judge said enabling her to buy a property was a minimum requirement of proper provision and took account of the husband’s greater earning capacity.
The parties differed over the value of household items and porcelain retained by the wife: the husband put their value at up to €100,000, while she valued them at less than €30,000. The court directed that she retain those items. It also directed that each spouse receive half of the Vodafone and TSB shares, that the wife retain her own pension, and that the husband’s pension be divided equally. The husband would keep his apartment and any benefit he might receive from his court action against his former business partner.
The judgment discussed allegations of infidelity and violence, which neither side pursued vigorously. It held that the misconduct established did not reach the threshold of “obvious and gross misconduct” and would not affect financial provision. The court did not specify a sale date or set out the final order; it said it would discuss the order’s form with counsel.