The Supreme Court has upheld an appeal by a divorced businessman against court orders requiring him to make better provision for his ex-wife, including to pay €1 million to buy her a second house and an additional €600,000 for her own use.
In an important judgment concerning the meaning of "proper provision" in the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996, the five-judge court today unanimously found the overall level of provision ordered for the ex-wife by the High Court was "excessive".
The court's duty was to make proper provision, not enter into "a redistribution of wealth", it said.
The judgment took into account the man had already provided a house for the woman, plus a lump sum of IR£70,000, under a 1996 separation agreement. It also noted a "radical change" in circumstances for both since that agreement, including a "dramatic" fall in the value of the man's assets - put at €21 million in 2009 - and the woman being unable to work due to illness.
The case will now go back to the High Court to make provision "in a just manner" and in accordance with the Supreme Court findings. The woman's needs would be met by increased maintenance and provision of a pension, the specific details of those provisions to be decided by the High Court, the Supreme Court ruled.
Giving the court's judgment, the Chief Justice, Ms Justice Susan Denham noted the man and woman married in the late 1970s and lived in a house inherited by the man. The woman brought IR£3,000 savings to the marriage and the couple, who have no children, ran a small business and farm in the early years before the man successfully got involved in another business.
The couple separated in the mid-1990s.
