The Supreme Court has sent a long-running divorce dispute back to the High Court after finding that the judge who awarded a wife half her husband's income, a £1.5 million lump sum and other financial relief had not adequately applied the statutory rules governing financial provision on divorce.
The parties, identified as M.K. and J.P., otherwise S.K., married in England in 1963 and later returned to Ireland, where they bought a family home in a provincial town. They had six children and began living apart around 1980.
In January 1982 they entered a formal separation deed. It provided for the wife to remain in the family home, for the husband to pay maintenance and the mortgage and provide health insurance, and for both parties to renounce succession rights. The judgment records that the husband complied with the financial terms and also contributed directly to the children's third-level education.
The husband's circumstances later changed substantially. After losing his job and suffering losses on a housing development, he obtained employment with an international company, eventually becoming president of its international operation. He and his long-term partner, M.B., accumulated considerable assets, most of which were jointly held.
The wife began divorce proceedings in 1998. In November 2000 the High Court granted the divorce and ordered the husband to transfer his interest in the family home, pay maintenance equal to half his annual salary and bonuses backdated to May 1999, and pay a £1.5 million lump sum. A later order directed that 80% of his Irish pension be paid to the wife when it became payable.
On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court judgment did not demonstrate proper consideration of section 20 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996. That section requires the court to consider matters including each spouse's resources and needs, the duration of the marriage, contributions to the family, other relationships and, specifically, any separation agreement still in force.
Mrs Justice McGuinness said equality could be a useful check but was not a rule requiring equal division. Because the judgment gave no indication of how the statutory factors, particularly the 1982 deed and the parties' two decades apart, had been weighed, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and returned the financial issues to the High Court for reconsideration.