The High Court has ordered staged financial provision for a woman seeking a divorce, after finding that a 1996 separation agreement did not prevent her from pursuing further relief. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Abbott on 12 December 2008, confirms the proposed order subject to refinements invited from counsel. It does not itself set out the final formal order in full.
The parties married in 1977 and separated in 1995. Their agreement provided the applicant with a house, a £70,000 lump sum, maintenance and payment of her VHI subscription. It also described the arrangement as a full and final settlement. The respondent argued that the agreement amounted to an estoppel against further financial claims.
The judge rejected that argument. The agreement was about 12 years old, and the parties’ circumstances had materially changed, including through the property boom and the respondent’s later sale of a site for about €19 million. The court held the agreement should carry weight but should not defeat the applicant’s claim. The applicant had not applied to have the agreement set aside.
The court considered the respondent’s assets to be about €21 million, while noting that many were illiquid and could have fallen in value amid financial turmoil. The judgment records that the applicant had a history of serious mental illness and was not realistically expected to return to work. It also recognised her contributions to the marriage, including homemaking and support for the respondent’s business activities.
The proposed provision includes a €600,000 investment to buy an annuity for lifetime maintenance, a €300,000 pension investment for benefits from age 65, and annual maintenance of €54,000, adjusted for the cost of living until fully annuitised. The respondent was also directed to provide €1 million by 1 December 2011 for accommodation, €65,000 for a joint account to meet VHI costs, and a further €600,000 for the applicant’s own use. The judgment provided for security over the respondent’s home and other fixed assets until payments and annuities were in place, and continued a €500,000 insurance policy for the applicant’s benefit during that period.
The court also made an earlier interlocutory costs order over disclosure failures and proposed that the respondent pay half of the applicant’s additional costs, subject to arguments about the amount. It directed a blocking order under the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996. The judge assessed the proposed provision at about €4.75 million and found it fair and just, while treating the later land-sale proceeds as a distinct event for the division assessment.