The High Court granted a decree of divorce after finding that proper provision had been made for the spouses. It increased the wife’s annual maintenance to €90,000, ordered the husband to pay her €400,000 and directed that €1.25 million from his pension fund be used to provide an Approved Retirement Fund for her. The judgment left the formal details of the order for further submissions by counsel.
The anonymised couple had been married since 1967 and separated in 1991. The wife began divorce proceedings in 2002 under the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996. Their 1991 separation agreement followed legal advice and financial disclosure. It provided the wife with £83,000, annual maintenance of £25,000 gross, and additional benefits including health cover, use of a car and a credit facility. The judge treated the agreement as reasonable, but found that it should not prevent further provision after the husband’s income increased substantially over the following years.
The parties resolved many issues before and during a hearing held from 18 to 25 July 2006. The remaining disputes concerned the value of the husband’s shares in a family business group, the weight to give the separation agreement, and the amount of provision. The judge valued the husband’s interest in the group at about €3 million, finding that it was a minority, non-voting holding without an effective way to sell or realise its value. He declined to base provision on a possible future sale of the business.
The judgment assessed the husband’s net assets at €8.111 million, including his shares, and the wife’s at €880,000. It recorded the husband’s gross income from all sources at €450,000 and net disposable income after tax at €282,000. The judge said the wife had remained dependent on the husband and had not shared in the rise in living standards that accompanied the growth in his income.
The €90,000 annual maintenance was to increase with the cost of living and could be reviewed if the husband stopped working. It was to be secured in the event of his death against his retirement fund and €500,000 of his investment portfolio. The judge rejected securing it against the family business shares, describing that option as illusory for the wife and distressing for the husband.
The court also directed that 10% of the husband’s current non-voting shares in the S. company be held in trust for the wife. She would receive dividends and cash proceeds, but could not require the shares to be transferred to her. The judgment invited counsel to address how the arrangement should operate if the shares were disposed of by will and the husband died within 15 years. The court’s divorce decision was made; the formal order still required counsel’s submissions on its details.