The High Court varied financial provisions made when a Circuit Court granted a divorce, ordering that the net proceeds from the eventual sale of the family home be divided 70% to the mother and 30% to the father. It also ordered additional payments for the couple’s two dependent children.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 1 June 2022 on the mother’s appeal. The spouses, identified in the judgment only as Ms Z and Mr Z, have two children of National School age. The Circuit Court had granted the divorce and ordered the father to continue paying half the mortgage. It also transferred the home into joint names, gave the mother the right to live there with the children until the youngest ceased to be dependent, and provided for an equal division of the net sale proceeds.
The High Court judge concluded that the existing financial arrangements did not make proper provision. He treated the father’s weekly €50 mortgage payment, after €39 was reimbursed to him, as an effective net contribution of €11. The judgment described that amount as too low, given the parties’ circumstances and the father’s spending. The judge also considered the mother’s evidence about meeting the children’s day-to-day needs, activities and care while working three days a week.
The judge found that the father’s health and capacity for work were relevant, but the evidence did not establish that he could never return to work. He considered a letter about the father’s Partial Capacity Benefit application difficult to interpret and did not treat it as conclusive proof that work was ruled out. The judgment records that the judge was more inclined to accept the mother’s account of events around a prospective job.
In varying the home-sale provision, the judge accepted the mother’s request for a 70/30 division in her favour. He also ordered the father to pay €100 in advance of each child’s birthday, at least one month beforehand; €200 in total towards Christmas presents by 25 November each year; and €200 towards back-to-school expenses by 31 July each year. The judgment states these payments are additional to the Circuit Court order and commence immediately.
All other parts of the Circuit Court order remain unchanged. The judgment addressed the appeal against ancillary financial provisions; it did not replace the divorce decree or alter the other orders, including the existing pension provisions.