High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. The Applicant left the family home on 14th December, 1997 after unhappy differences had deteriorated over the two previous years.

2. At the time of the separation all children were of full age. Although not dependant for the purpose of the Acts, they required and were given support from both parties.

3. It is unfortunate that at a time when these unhappy differences intensified that both the Applicant and the Respondent suffered ill health.

4. While the Applicant felt she was not independent financially, the evidence before the Court was that she had adequate means commensurate with the income produced from her husband’s practice.

5. Besides helping in the early years with the practice she also was of personal support to her husband.

6. Both parties are agreed that relationships have broken down irretrievably. The Court is satisfied that a normal marital relationship has not existed between the spouses for over two years and, indeed, that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the date of the application.

7. In these circumstances the Court grants a decree of Judicial Separation pursuant to the provisions of Section 2(d) and (f).

8. The Respondent had been paying the Applicant a sum of £400 per week which was reduced to the sum of £300 per week on the basis that the sum was net of tax.

9. The Applicant’s Affidavit of Means filed 5th March, 1999 details the weekly outgoings of the Applicant as £444. None of the items were vouched. While I accept that the Applicant has had to borrow in order to renew her car and in order to pay arrears of rent on occasions, her bank statements show normal and only occasional overdrawings. No evidence was adduced as to cheques paid in relation to the weekly outgoings. The roundness of the figures of the outgoings would seem to suggest some exageration rather than an accurate analysis of bills paid. Moreover, there may be some elements of double counting, for example, in the oil and fuel at £40 per week.

10. I propose to make a periodical payments order under Section 8(1)(a) of the 1995 Act in the sum of £375 per week net.

11. The Applicant also requires a Property Adjudgment Order pursuant to Section 9 of the 1995 Act.

12. I am satirised that the only property in respect of which such Order can be made is the following:-

13. The property is approximately 1300Sq Feet and comprises of a shop unit and two further rooms and a toilet formerly used as a surgery and waiting room. The first floor is residential.

14. The new surgery is held in partnership and is, together with the other properties, subject to a mortgage in the sum of £120,000. I have no doubt that the Respondent’s interest in the third property, without considering the mortgage for the moment, is valued at £175,000.

15. The total value of all the property is, accordingly, £475,000 (£225,000 plus £75,000 plus £175,000) less a mortgage of £120,000 or a net equity of £355,000.

16. The family home and the old surgery premises are held in joint names.

17. It seems to me that the most equitable division that can be achieved by way of a Property Adjustment Order is that the family home remain in joint tenancy of the Applicant and the Respondent, that the Respondent’s interest in the old surgery premises be transferred to the Applicant free from incumbrances and that no Order be made in respect of the new surgery premises.

18. The Applicant also requires ancillary orders pursuant to the provisions of Section 10. I am conscious of the fact that the Respondent’s practice is also conducted at the surgery attached to the family home. While no evidence was given as to the breakdown of the volume of practice between the new surgery and the family home, it was not contested that part of the Respondent’s practice was conducted in the family home. I propose granting an Order conferring on the Respondent the right to occupy the family home and surgery to the exclusion of the Applicant for so long as he remains in practice or until he attains the age of 65 whichever is the earlier. At the earlier of such date unless the parties otherwise agree or agree to an earlier date, I order that the family home be sold and the net proceeds be divided equally between the Applicant and the Respondent.

19. I make no Order under Section 11.

20. The Respondent’s pension under the GMS scheme will provide entitlement after the age of 65 to a pension of £35,300 at current prices as of January 2016. Alternatively, it will provide a capital sum of over £100,000 and a pension of £26,470 as of that date. The Applicant is entitled to two-thirds of the Respondent’s pension in the event of his death.

21. I propose to make no Order in respect of Section 12. It is more appropriate to make a preservation of pensions entitlement order pursuant to Section 13 preserving the Applicant’s right in the pension.

22. I make no Order pursuant to Section 14.

23. I propose to hear the parties as to the effect of these decisions and also in respect of the matter of costs. I am anxious that the matter should proceed with expedition.