A separated wife has lost her appeal alleging a €3.8 million lump sum that her estranged husband was ordered to pay to her was too low.
The woman claimed the sum, alleged to represent up to 12 per cent of the man’s assets, was not “proper provision” under the Family Law Act 1995 and Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989.
She alleged the High Court failed to properly take into account "egregious" misconduct by him and sought some 20 per cent of his assets.
Proper weight was not given to factors including his infidelity, his fathering of a child with another woman and his transfer of “significant” assets to that other woman, and to a third woman, she claimed.
In a judgment made available last week, the three-judge Court of Appeal dismissed the wife's appeal against the 2013 High Court judgment by Mr Justice Michael White.
The husband had previously withdrawn his own appeal over the High Court judgment.
Family law
Because the judgment concerns family law proceedings, nothing can be published that might identify the parties.
The High Court ordered the man to pay €3.8 million to his wife and €20,000 in monthly maintenance for herself and the children. She also got the entire interest in the property where she lived, and two other properties.
The shares each would have in the other’s estate were cancelled and a declaration was made the husband had no claim on certain properties owned by the wife.
Ms Justice Mary Irvine, with whom Mr Justice Sean Ryan and Mr Justice Gerard Hogan agreed, said the High Court had regard to all 12 relevant statutory factors when deciding proper provision, including the parties' ages, standard of living, conduct, financial needs and their income, earning capacity and assets now and into the future.
A party’s conduct must be so “obvious and gross” to warrant being taken into account, and infidelity and “exceptionally harsh and hurtful comments” made about a spouse did not rank as such conduct.
Significant money
The High Court had to consider the husband’s conduct in all the circumstances, including that he gave significant money and property to the mother of the child he fathered outside of wedlock. There was no evidence his transfer of assets interfered with his ability to provide an “extremely generous” standard of living for his wife during their relationship.
Because of the “surplus” assets, the transfer had no material impact on the court’s ability to make proper provision for the wife, it said.
The wife had alleged the man had left out very significant assets valued at about €28 million from his affidavit of means and had asked her to sign an agreement that she would not seek to have vouched the assets referred to in the affidavit, the judge noted.
While satisfied the husband knew more about his finances than he maintained in evidence, the High Court had said it could not be satisfied that he set out to deliberately mislead the court or his wife, she said.
It could not be said the evidence was so grossly and obviously in favour of a finding of deliberate fraud and concealment that the appeal court could interfere with those findings.
Full disclosure
The High Court also found, at the time in 2013 when it had to decide proper provision, there was full disclosure of the man’s assets and decided his conduct was not such that the court, for the purposes of making proper provision, could not ignore it.
The wife had failed to show the €3.8 million was not proper provision for her, the appeal court held.
The judge also dismissed claims the High Court failed to have adequate regard to her claims about the adverse effect of marriage on her own potential income or her role as homemaker.
Other relationships
Earlier, the judge noted the couple were in a relationship for some 20 years and married several years after starting that relationship. They had children together and both also have children by other relationships.
They disagreed over the extent to which theirs was a committed relationship and the motivation for their marriage.
The man made substantial financial payments to his wife over the years and she also got property assets.
Subject to allowing for “some exaggeration”, the High Court accepted the wife’s evidence of providing a strong family environment for her children and that, in the last year or so of their marriage, the man treated his wife in a dishonest and disrespectful manner and deliberately misled her about his personal life.
The High Court also found the wife should not have threatened the man with loss of their children or tried to force him to sign certain financial documents.
