A judge has made orders for distribution of assets including three properties valued at about €1.4 million in proceedings involving a couple whose marriage was “full of strife”.
Under the orders, the wife gets the family home, while the husband will receive two other properties. Most of a €587,000 cash sum will be divided equally between them.
The core dispute was over the €587,000 that the man argued should go entirely to him.
He appealed to the High Court over Circuit Court orders concerning proper provision in divorce proceedings involving the couple whose children are aged over 18. Two continue to receive financial support from their mother, and one from their father.
READ MORE
In her recently published judgment, Judge Nuala Jackson said the history of the long marriage appeared “somewhat joyless, chaotic, angst-ridden and full of strife”.
Both parties have professional qualifications, but while the woman worked outside the home throughout the marriage, the man only occasionally did so and had a recent diagnosis of a neurodivergent condition.
He argued he was the primary carer for the children over the years and contributed to the family income through rental of two properties owned by him before he married, plus management of investments. The woman said his care role was no more than hers, and she was exclusively responsible for many household and family tasks, while also working.
Both sides made allegations about the behaviour of the other, which both denied, and the woman’s lawyer said it was not a case where claims of gross and obvious misconduct were being pursued.
The marriage ended after the woman got an interim barring order, leading to the man suffering a “very distressing psychiatric episode” and later moving into one of his properties.
The assets of the parties are clear, including three mortgage-free properties, all requiring significant repair, plus cash investments, said Jackson. The liabilities were “modest”, except for legal and accountancy costs incurred in the proceedings.
Having held the provenance of the assets was “of considerable significance”, the judge ruled the woman is entitled to the €640,000 family home, having bought that before the marriage.
The man is entitled to the two investment properties, to which there will be tax liabilities attached. she held. One, where he now lives, was acquired by him before marriage and is now valued about €510,000. He acquired the second, valued about €240,000, via inheritance during the marriage.
The judge rejected the man’s claim he was entitled to all the €587,000 frozen cash. He argued that this reflected his own pre-marriage funds and an inheritance sum, but the judge said it would not be proper provision to ignore certain expenditures.
Prior to the separation about four years ago, sums amounting to just over €1 million were held in joint accounts, Jackson said. It was alleged the man withdrew more than €875,000, of which he spent about €136,000, including about €30,000 on legal fees, €33,000 for a car and monies on “very expensive” furniture.
The man, who does not have a pension, continues to receive, under court order, €750 in weekly income paid out of the joint accounts.
The woman appeared to have spent about €128,000 on family outlays, including about €58,000 in school fees and €6,000 for a car.
It was “incomprehensible” that the family’s resources were depleted by €150,000 due to the children attending boarding school abroad, a move apparently instigated by their father, Jackson said.
Another “vast waste” of money involved a forensic trawl of finances over the duration of the marriage aimed at “enhancing” the man’s position, while “demeaning” that of his wife.
Both parties brought property to the marriage; the woman used hers to house the family, and the man used his to some degree in terms of rental, “but in a manifestly sub-optimal manner”. The woman contributed to family resources from her work outside the home and the man did so to a more limited degree.
The judge found the man’s evidence “unimpressive”, saying he appeared “more focused on being right, as he perceives it, than being sensible, pragmatic or advancing the overall betterment of the family”.
Among orders concerning the monies in the joint accounts, the judge directed that the woman be paid €20,000 child support and the man a lump sum based on €750 weekly up to November 1st, 2026, to allow time for his other investment property to generate income.
Apart from a €27,000 inheritance for the children, the remainder must be divided equally between the parties, and the man must pay the forensic accountants’ fees and witness expenses regarding those.
