The High Court has set out a proposed package of financial and family orders in a judicial separation case, conditional on whether the applicant can be released from liabilities owed to lenders. The judgment does not record that the proposed orders were finally made.
In a judgment delivered on 10 December 2013, Mr Justice Michael White said the parties’ marriage had broken down irretrievably. The applicant brought proceedings in August 2011. The substantive case was heard over seven days between April and July 2013, with written submissions completed by the end of September.
The parties, identified as KL and CL, married in 1988 and have three children. The court noted that the youngest child, E, lived with the applicant, while R lived there when at home and Ro was abroad. The parties had consented to joint custody of E, with access to be negotiated directly between E and the respondent. The court described Ro as non-dependent under the legislation.
The judgment assessed the parties’ net assets at about €962,408, against substantial debts and other liabilities. The court valued their land and residence at €2.535 million before accounting for debt and costs. It said selling all the assets, including the farm, would not be in either party’s interests, given the respondent’s employment prospects and the lack of a realistic prospect of maintenance being paid to the applicant.
The court’s proposed orders included monthly payments of €2,000 to the applicant and €1,000 for E, health insurance for the applicant, R and E, and payment of R’s education expenses until age 23. It also proposed a capital payment of €481,204 to the applicant: €381,204 forthwith and €100,000 by 1 January 2016.
The proposed property transfers depended on releases from Bank of Ireland, Permanent TSB and Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IRBC). The respondent would take over specified loans and secure the applicant’s release from them, and indemnify the applicant against the relevant liabilities. If the releases were obtained, the court said it would make succession-rights orders under section 14 of the Family Law Act 1995. If they were not, specified lands would remain jointly owned as security, with further directions concerning investments and the IRBC loan.
The judge said clarification was required from the financial institutions. The court also allowed the in-camera rule to be relaxed for correspondence with the three lenders and said it would hear submissions on any consequential orders required.