The Court of Appeal has dismissed a wife’s appeal seeking a larger lump sum after a judicial separation, leaving in place the High Court’s €3.8 million award.
The appeal concerned only the lump sum. The husband had withdrawn his own appeal, and the wife did not pursue her request for an order making relief in his favour conditional on full compliance with the High Court order at his death.
The High Court had also ordered monthly maintenance of €20,000, including €7,000 for the wife and €6,500 for each of the two children. It gave the wife the full beneficial and equitable interest in the property where she was living, made other property and succession orders, and ordered the husband to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The wife argued that the High Court had given insufficient weight to the husband’s conduct, his initial failure to disclose substantial assets, her contributions as a homemaker, the value of certain properties, his possible future income from overseas work, and the risk of costs in separate litigation concerning the family home. She said the award represented about 11% to 12% of the husband’s assets and should have been at least 20%.
The Court of Appeal said the conduct test under the Family Law Act 1995 was the same as the test under the divorce legislation: conduct had to be “gross and obvious” before it could affect proper provision. It rejected the argument that a series of individually insufficient acts could be combined to cross that threshold. The court found that the husband’s personal conduct, though objectionable, had not materially reduced the resources available to provide for his wife.
The judgment also noted that substantial assets had initially been omitted from the husband’s affidavits of means. The High Court had found, after hearing evidence, that he had not deliberately set out to mislead the court or his wife and that full disclosure had been made by the time proper provision was assessed. The Court of Appeal said it could not displace those findings.
The appellate court found that the High Court had considered the statutory factors, including the wife’s homemaking role and likely future earning capacity. It also upheld the approach to the properties and uncertain future overseas income. The court noted that the wife’s separate litigation had settled and that no evidence showed she had suffered the adverse costs outcome she had feared.
It concluded that the wife had not shown the overall provision was legally deficient and dismissed the appeal. The High Court award therefore remains unchanged.