The High Court has refused a respondent’s application to divide a cohabitation case into separate hearing modules and ordered him to serve an affidavit of means. The court did not decide whether the applicant is a qualified cohabitant or whether she should receive financial relief.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell on 22 November 2023, concerned two motions in proceedings under Part 15 of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. The applicant seeks a declaration that she and the respondent were qualified cohabitants, along with property, maintenance and pension orders. Those claims remain unresolved.
The applicant’s pleaded case is that the relationship began around May 2017, that the parties had a daughter born in early 2020, and that they stopped living together on 15 November 2020. The respondent disputes that they were qualified cohabitants and has argued that the proceedings began outside the statutory time limit. The judgment records that the parties’ accounts of the relationship and their financial arrangements are heavily contested.
The respondent first sought a preliminary determination of whether the applicant was a qualified cohabitant and asked to postpone filing his financial disclosure. He argued that disclosure would unnecessarily affect his privacy if the applicant failed to meet that threshold. An open letter from his solicitor, cited in the judgment, stated that his net worth was “not less than €30,000,000” and argued that no affidavit or supporting documents were needed. That was a solicitor’s letter, not a finding by the court about his wealth.
The respondent later proposed a modular hearing: first deciding qualified cohabitant status, then considering any financial orders if needed. The judge found insufficient evidence that splitting the trial would save time or costs. He also considered that separating evidence about the relationship from evidence about finances could make cross-examination unfair and increase delay and expense for the applicant.
The court held that the legislation and court rules required financial disclosure for these proceedings and that the respondent’s asserted ability to meet any award did not remove that obligation. It refused the modular hearing and refused to waive or defer the affidavit requirement. The judge expressly declined to bar the respondent from defending the claim. Instead, he ordered him to serve an affidavit of means.
The judgment did not set the filing deadline or decide costs. Those matters were listed for hearing on 28 November 2023.