The High Court has dismissed an appeal by T. R. against consent terms resolving disputes with O. B. C. over their former family home and maintenance for their two dependent children.
In a judgment delivered on 7 February 2025, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson said the parties had compromised the proceedings before the Circuit Family Court, which made the terms an order on 10 July 2024. The High Court appeal concerned that composite order, and Justice Jackson amended the notice of appeal to cover both sets of proceedings involved.
Under the agreement, T. R. could remain in the home until July 2029. Pending its sale, the parties were to pay the mortgage, local property tax and management charges equally. Net sale proceeds, after specified deductions, were to be divided 65% to O. B. C. and 35% to T. R. O. B. C. also agreed to pay €433.33 monthly for the children, half of specified vouched expenses, and their private health insurance.
T. R. argued that the terms were inadequate and unfair, and alleged that O. B. C. had failed to disclose financial resources, including proceeds from the sale of another property. O. B. C. denied non-disclosure and said the settlement was not unfair. The judgment records other disputed claims by both parties about their finances and contributions during the relationship; it does not determine those allegations as findings of liability.
Justice Jackson noted that the Circuit Family Court had not heard evidence or determined the disputed claims before making the consent terms an order. She said definitive consideration of the legal principles governing appeals from consent orders in family proceedings would have to await a case where the issues were fully argued.
The court concluded that the appeal could not be used to obtain a first-instance hearing on matters the parties had settled. It also declined to grant relief under cohabitation legislation, noting T. R.’s signed agreement that she was not a qualified cohabitant and the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying variation or setting aside of that agreement. The appeal was dismissed. The judgment does not set out any further order changing the Circuit Family Court consent terms.