The High Court dismissed an application to commit a husband for contempt over a shortfall in interim maintenance, reversed the Circuit Court order appointing his wife’s son as her McKenzie friend, and adjourned a separate question about referring material to a public authority.
Mr Justice John MacMenamin delivered the ruling on 20 October 2010 in proceedings between P.K. and J.K. The court said the husband had been ordered to pay €66 a week but had paid €62.50 for a number of weeks. His solicitor accepted responsibility for the misunderstanding and offered the accumulated difference, which the wife refused. The judge dismissed her contempt application, noting that steps had been taken to remedy the underpayment.
The judge had intended to set a final maintenance figure after considering both parties’ financial circumstances. But the wife, referred to in parts of the ruling as Ms N., refused to give evidence about her income or answer questions on the maintenance issue. The court said it could not determine maintenance fairly without evidence about both parties’ means, assets, expenses and liabilities. It left the previous €50 maintenance order in place and said she could ask the Circuit Court to revisit the matter if she chose to testify and be cross-examined.
The court also refused an application to require a specified meter to be fitted to the husband’s taxi to verify his income. It expressly made no finding about whether the wife had earned income while receiving social welfare, saying there was no evidence on that issue.
The judge reversed the Circuit Court appointment of the wife’s son as McKenzie friend, citing the conduct of the litigation and his view that the son’s advice had not assisted the court or the parties. The wife remained free to appoint another McKenzie friend. The ruling described the proceedings as vexatious and as involving abuse of court process, while reiterating that the husband’s conduct in the marriage had been reprehensible.
The court adjourned for two months the question of whether any material should be referred to a government agency, saying it wanted a specific application and relevant authorities before deciding. It did not express a view on whether the transcript showed prima facie offences. It dismissed the wife’s application for legal expenses and made no costs order, although the judge said such an order could have been considered. Except for the adjourned referral question, future applications were directed to the Circuit Court.