B (G) v B (A)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Abbott
• Judgment Date: 15 March 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 491
• Court: High Court
• Date: 15 March 2007

[2007] IEHC 491

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 108 M/2001]

[No. 8 M/2006]

B (G) v B (A)

FAMILY LAW

IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL SEPARATION AND FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT 1989 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT 1995

BETWEEN

G.B.

APPLICANT

AND

A.B.

RESPONDENT

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT 1996

T (D) v T (C) 2002 3 IR 334

C (J) v C (M) UNREP ABBOTT 22.1.2007 (EX TEMPORE)

P v P (FINANCIAL RELIEF: ILLIQUID ASSETS) 2005 1 FLR 548 2004 EWHC 2277 (FAM)

C v C (VARIATION OF POST NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT: COMPANY SHARES) 2003 2 FLR 493 2003 EWHC 1222 (FAM)

WELLS v WELLS 2002 2 FLR 97 2002 EWCA CIV 476

MCM (S) v MCM (M) UNREP ABBOTT 29.11.2006 2007/36/7510 2006 IEHC 451

FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT 1996 S20(2)

FAMILY LAW ACT 1995 S35

FAMILY LAW

Divorce

Proper provision for parties - Maintenance - Lump sum instalment payments - Pension adjustment order - Applicant wife highly dependent - Medical issues - Respondent husband's business interests and financial position - Income and assets of both parties - Assumption of risk - Open offers - Whether clean break possible - Whether ample resources - T(D) v T(C) [2003] 1 ILRM 321; C(J) v C(M) (Unrep, Abbott J, 22/1/2007); P v P (Financial Relief: Liquid Assets) [2004] EWHC 2277 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 548; C v C (Variation of Post Nuptial Settlement: Company Shares) [2003] EWHC 1222, [2003] 2 FLR 493; Wells v Wells [2002] EWCA Civ 476, [2002] 2 FLR 97; McM v McM (Unrep, Abbott J, 29/11/2006) considered - Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989 (No 6) - Family Law Act 1995 (No 26) - Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 (No 33), s 20(2) - (2001/108M & 2006/8M - Abbott J - 15/3/2007) [2007] IEHC 491

B(G) v B(A)

Facts: The applicant wife initiated separation proceedings against the respondent husband in 2001. The husband initiated divorce proceedings in 2006 and the outstanding matter before the Court pertained to the question of proper provision within the meaning of the Family Law (Divorce ) Act 1996. There were three children of the marriage. The wife was in a disabled state and concerned as to the unpredictable financial arrangements in place. The husband was in a relationship with a new partner and had recently had a child. The husband had interests in retail businesses and had netted substantial sums from the sale of one such business. Open offers by letter prior to the proceedings were set out before the Court.

Held by Abbott J. that the case was not one of ample resources and a "clean break" solution was not possible on the facts in light of the high dependency of the wife and the illiquid state of the assets. The Court would direct that gross maintenance in the sum of Eur 120,000 would be paid annually by the husband to the wife. Various lump sum instalment payments would be ordered by the Court and a pension adjustment order would be made. The Court would direct that the husband, his successors and personal representatives hold 90% of his shares representing 50% shareholding in the second retail company in trust for the wife. The Court would grant a decree of divorce.

Reporter: E.F

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Abbott delivered on the 15th day of March, 2007.

2 The applicant G.B. in the first proceedings (the wife) initiated judicial separation proceedings against A.B. (the husband) by way of special summons for judicial separation dated the 3 ^rd August, 2001. They were married on the 11 ^th August, 1973 in Ireland. The husband initiated divorce proceedings by way of special summons dated the 7 ^th February, 2006. Both sets of proceedings were heard as a divorce action before this court.

3 The court is satisfied on the evidence that at the dates on which the proceedings under each code were initiated the husband and wife were domiciled and resident in Ireland, that for a period of four out of the five years preceding the divorce proceedings there did not exist between the husband and the wife a normal marital relationship and that there is no possibility of a reconciliation between them. The outstanding issue taking up the greatest part of the hearing was that relating to the proper provision for the parties within the meaning and for the purposes of the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 in the event of the marriage of the parties being dissolved by way of decree of divorce.

History of the Marriage

4 At the date of the marriage the husband was an engineer in the P.T. company and the wife was a clerk/typist in the I.S. company. There were three children of the marriage A. who was born in November, 1974, J. who was born in May, 1978 and A.M. who was born in July, 1983. After the birth of A. in 1974, the wife worked only occasionally and was in receipt of disability benefit by reason of ill health with its origin in her childhood which recurred and presented difficulty associated with pregnancy. In the mid 1970s the husband was approached by the M. company and took up employment within it and was permitted to go to university to obtain further qualifications. The wife claimed that during this period the family income decreased and she went back to work for the M. company in the home, and later in the M. company premises by way of an assistant to the husband. The wife's employment with the M. company in this fashion ceased on the birth of her daughter J. in 1978. The M. company and the husband's employment with it prospered enabling the couple to move houses a number of times and ultimately to D.L. in or about 1989. At this time the husband was promoted by the M. company to its international management and this necessitated the relocation of the family in England. The costs of the relocation were borne generously by the M. company and arrangements were made for the education of the children in England. Accommodation in England, while of a high standard, did not greatly please the wife, as she missed her family in Ireland. She qualified as a florist and worked in a flower shop in England on a part-time basis. At this time the husband spent considerable amounts of time travelling abroad on business. In or about 1991 the husband purchased the Irish branch of the M. company and the family moved back to D.L. in Ireland which had been difficult to sell and had been retained while the family were in England. The husband's employment with the M. company ceased upon the purchase by him of their Irish branch and the wife opened a flower shop and subsequently found employment in a flower shop in Ireland after she had closed her own shop having found it too much of a strain for her. The husband founded a group of companies (which shall be referred to as the S.C. group) for the purpose of developing the former business of the M. company. The S.C. group prospered significantly and the husband remained as the principal shareholder and chief executive/main driving force behind it and remains so up to the present time. Of significance for the family history is the fact that the S.C. group and the husband became involved in a consortium formed for the purpose of bidding for a government concession (hereinafter referred to as the first concession) sometime in the mid 1990s. To participate in the consortium the husband and the S.C. group had to raise borrowings for capital to back the consortium and the wife came to understand that this money was borrowed on the security of the family home. The bid of the consortium was not successful and the wife became worried that the family would lose the family home by reason of the indebtedness. In or about November, 1995 the wife suffered a major stroke which she says was induced by stress but concedes that medical opinion was never able to pinpoint the cause of the stroke. However, during the course of the proceedings and hearing of the action the husband appears to concede that the stroke was caused by the stress occasioned by the worry about the family home being threatened by the indebtedness creased by the failed consortium bid. In fact the wife in evidence conceded that the family home was removed as security prior to her stroke but says that she had not been told about this. After her stroke the wife was wheelchair bound and was hospitalised for various periods including a lengthy period dealing with her recovery in England. In or about 1997 the husband and wife bought a substantial premises (which shall be referred to as the S. house) which was modified to be a multiple dwelling catering for the individual needs of the husband and wife and their children with a swimming pool attached. The family moved into the S. house in about 1999, and, after that move, unhappy differences developed between the husband and wife.

5 In or about March, 2000 the husband departed from the S. house and has not returned to the family home since then. The S. house provided extensive accommodation which unfortunately did not suit the wife in her disabled state and the parties purchased a more suitable premises at C.G. for the wife and at G.R.S. for the husband. The parties now live apart in these two homes and intend to do so, the husband having formed a relationship with a new partner with whom he recently had a child. The S. house was ultimately sold and the three children of the marriage each have their own accommodation. One has a business which was provided with the financial assistance of the husband with the contributions of the wife being at a much lesser level and relating only to furnishing. The wife is maintained by the husband with a monthly payment together with payments in discharge of various outgoings and the discharge of credit card bills. The wife in evidence says that she is not happy with the arrangements which she acknowledges to be appropriate in financial terms by reason of the fact that they are not established on a predictable basis, and often are dependant upon her making demand for...