The High Court set out intended changes to financial arrangements after Ms A appealed a Circuit Court order made following her divorce from Mr B. In a judgment delivered on 25 November 2020, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the court would require the family home to be transferred to Ms A once its mortgage was cleared and would issue a barring order against Mr B. The judgment said a short further hearing would take place before final orders were made; an addendum dated 16 December records what the court said it would order after that hearing.
The Circuit Court had ordered the home sold when the youngest child ceased to be dependent, with the net proceeds divided 40% to Mr B and 60% to Ms A. The High Court intended to remove the sale provision. Ms A would pay the full mortgage from the month the order issued. Once the mortgage was paid off, or otherwise cleared by or for her, the home would be transferred into her sole ownership without Mr B’s consent. The addendum says the order would also address the home becoming part of Ms A’s estate if mortgage protection paid off the loan after her death, with dealings handled by her estate’s representative without Mr B’s consent.
The court intended to keep the existing child-maintenance provisions, but make them operative only if Ms A lost her job, became too unwell to work, or other circumstances arose that she did not then contemplate in good faith. The provisions included Mr B’s responsibility for half of the children’s educational expenses and weekly maintenance of €120, divided among the dependent children. The judge noted Ms A’s evidence that she was budgeting on the basis that maintenance would not be paid while she remained employed.
The judgment records the court’s concerns about Mr B’s conduct during the hearing and the parties’ finances. The judge found his claim of serious financial hardship unpersuasive and said he had reduced maintenance payments without court approval. Those findings informed the court’s approach to financial provision. The court also found reasonable grounds to believe that Ms A’s and the dependent children’s safety or welfare required a barring order. It intended to prohibit violence, threats, molestation or putting them in fear, attendance at or near their residence, and following or communicating with them. The order was to continue until further order.
The court intended to affirm the divorce decree and custody and access provisions, with specified changes to other parts of the Circuit Court order. As both parties represented themselves, it made no order as to costs. The source does not reproduce the final sealed order, so the article describes the orders as intended by the court in the judgment and addendum.