The High Court has substantially allowed a husband's appeal from orders made following the breakdown of a short marriage, setting aside a safety order and reducing the financial provision made for his former wife.
The anonymised couple married in the United States in 2012 and separated in April 2017. They have one child, A, born in March 2016. Their dispute has since passed through the District, Circuit and High Courts, with asserted legal costs on both sides approaching €500,000.
Mr Justice Jordan described the litigation as highly conflicted and found that both parents had contributed to its acrimonious character. He nevertheless noted that their child was doing very well overall and credited both parents for that.
The Circuit Court had ordered, among other things, €1,100 monthly child maintenance, substantial lump-sum spousal maintenance, €173,500 in lieu of pension adjustment, a €61,500 contribution to the wife's legal costs and a safety order lasting until February 2034.
On appeal, the High Court held that the safety order was not supported by sufficient evidence. The judge found no credible evidence that the father was violent, had threatened violence or posed a danger requiring protection under the Domestic Violence Act 2018. The safety order was therefore set aside, although an injunction was imposed preventing him from approaching the mother's front door or entering her property beyond the bottom of the steps.
The court also found the Circuit Court's financial provision excessive given the marriage lasted about four and a half years, relatively few assets were accumulated during it and much of the husband's property came from inheritance or family arrangements.
Using approximately €1.1 million in available assets as a guide, the court considered provision equivalent to 25% appropriate. It fixed total lump-sum provision for the wife at €275,000, taking account of €172,600 already paid or offered, and ordered a further €102,400 in two instalments. Each side was left to bear its own legal costs.