The High Court granted a divorce and ordered the husband to pay his wife €2,000 a month for her own benefit and €600 a month for each of their three dependent children. It also ordered him to transfer the family home to her and pay a €400,000 lump sum. The court made these orders after rehearing the divorce and related financial claims; it deferred a decision on a further application concerning financial security until after considering the parties’ submissions on that issue.
The couple, identified in the judgment as R.G. and C.G., married in 1982 and separated in 1998. A 2000 judicial separation settlement provided for financial support, property arrangements and other relief. The husband later sought a divorce. The Circuit Court granted one in 2004 and made financial orders, but both parties appealed those orders. The High Court heard the claims afresh. Neither party challenged the divorce on the ground that the couple had lived apart for the required period or that reconciliation was possible; the dispute concerned proper provision.
The husband argued that the wife should not depart from the 2000 settlement without a substantial reason. The wife argued that the court should disregard it. The judge rejected both positions in part: the settlement and the orders made under it remained relevant to the family’s circumstances and to the earlier judicial separation claims, but its statement that it amounted to proper provision for a future divorce could not determine what provision was proper at the later hearing. The judge also held that the agreement could not prevent either spouse from applying for financial orders.
The judge considered the parties’ current circumstances, including the husband’s professional income and property development, the wife’s reduced earning capacity after leaving employment to care for the children, and the implementation of the earlier settlement. The judgment assessed the husband’s property and the wife’s assets, and found that the wife was likely to obtain work but would not probably return to her former profession.
Under the orders, monthly payments for the wife and each dependent child are to rise in line with the consumer price index. The child payments continue while each child remains dependent under the legislation and lives at home, unless the wife agrees in writing to direct payment to that child. The husband must transfer the home free of encumbrances by 1 October 2005 and pay the lump sum by 1 December 2005. He remains responsible for health insurance for the dependent children but not for the wife. The court discharged specified maintenance and trust provisions from the 2000 order as the new arrangements take effect.
In an addendum dated 9 March 2005, the judge said the maintenance orders were to be made under a different subsection of the legislation and secured by a first registered charge over properties identified by the husband as potentially unencumbered. The court deferred its decision on the application concerning orders after either spouse’s death until that charge was completed and registered. The judgment also made no order for costs in the Circuit Court or High Court.