CP v RP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson
• Judgment Date: 16 May 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 332
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: RECORD NUMBER 2024/19 CAT

In the Matter of the Judicial Separation & Family Law Reform Act, 1989 &

In the Matter of the Family Law Act, 1995, &

And in the Matter of the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 As Amended

Between/

C. P.

Applicant/Respondent

and

R. P.

Respondent/Appellant

and

N. P.

Notice Party

[2025] IEHC 332

RECORD NUMBER 2024/19 CAT

CIRCUIT COURT RECORD NO. FL00017/2019

THE HIGH COURT

FAMILY LAW

CIRCUIT COURT APPEAL

EASTERN CIRCUIT

COUNTY OF MEATH

Family law – Divorce – Settlement – Respondent seeking to proceed for hearing – Whether there was a legally binding settlement

Facts: The respondent wife sought a judicial separation and ancillary relief by Family Law Civil Bill filed on 6 April 2019. The case was heard in 2022 and orders were made by the Circuit Family Court (Judge Quinn) on 22 July 2022, who converted the proceedings into a divorce and made ancillary orders under the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996. The appellant husband succeeded in having an application to extend time to appeal granted by order of the Deputy Master of 16 January 2024 when the time for the service and lodgement of a notice of appeal was extended by a period of three weeks and the appeal came for hearing on 25 and 26 March 2025, before the High Court (Jackson J), some two years and eight months after the order of the Circuit Family Court. The notice party, who was formally joined to the proceedings on 12 March 2025 (this was to clarify some potential uncertainty in that regard arising from the Circuit Family Court proceedings), was present for the hearing and the submissions, accompanying his father, the husband. After negotiations between senior counsel on 25 March 2025, the High Court was advised by senior counsel for the wife that the case had settled and needed to be reduced to writing. The court gave the parties until 4.15 pm that day if it was ready to rule and otherwise adjourned the matter into the following morning at 11.00 am. Jackson J was informed on the morning of 26 March 2025 that the wife was no longer satisfied with the arrangements and that she wished to proceed for hearing. Jackson J was then informed that it was the husband’s position that the matter was settled and that the case should proceed on that basis. Counsel for the wife disputed that there was a legally binding settlement in that instance.

Held by Jackson J that, having considered the exchanges between counsel for the parties and the court in the afternoon of 25 May 2025, those submissions/representations could not, in their totality, be viewed as informing the court of an unconditional and finalised agreement but rather that significant steps along the route to compromise were in train subject to a further exercise which was likely to take some time which further exercise would involve steps upon which the parties would have to reach agreement. She was not prepared to find a complete and unconditional settlement having been reached. She held that it was for the husband to determine whether he wished to proffer evidence (none such having been heard by her) that there was a concluded agreement in all material respects and the terms thereof.

Jackson J held that the matter was in the list to fix dates on 19 May 2025. At that time, she would direct that a two day hearing slot be provided for the matter. She held that if the husband wished to argue the settlement point, that could be done at that time. If that issue was being pursued, she would list the matter for case management and for directions in relation to pleadings/issue papers on 28 May 2025 at 10.30 am or such other date convenient to the parties and their representatives, such case management date to be confirmed or an alternative fixed in the list to fix dates.

Proceeded to hearing.

Joined by Court Order of the 12/03/2025

Judgment of Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson delivered on the 16 ^th May 2025.

1 The matters at issue in this decision are extremely net but they are extremely important issues in the context of the compromise of proceedings and, in particular, the compromise of family law proceedings. For ease of reference, C.P., the Applicant and Respondent to this Appeal, shall be referred to as ‘the wife’, R.P., the Appellant, as the ‘ the husband’ and N.P. as the ‘ Notice Party’.

BACKGROUND

2 The wife herein sought a Judicial Separation and ancillary relief by Family Law Civil Bill filed on the 6 ^th of April, 2019. There was considerable delay in getting the proceedings on for hearing, which delay, the Applicant contends, was due to the failure by the Respondent to make proper financial disclosure. The case was finally heard in 2022 and Orders were made by the Circuit Family Court (His Honour Judge Patrick Quinn) on the 22 ^nd day of July, 2022, who converted the proceedings into a divorce and made ancillary Orders under the 1996 Act. The husband, after further delay, succeeded in having an application to extend time to appeal granted by Order of the Deputy Master of the 16 ^th January 2024 when the time for the service and lodgement of a Notice of Appeal was extend by a period of three weeks and the Appeal came for hearing on the 25 ^th and 26 ^th of March, 2025, before me, some two years and eight months after the Order of the Circuit Family Court. The Notice Party, who was formally joined to the proceedings on the 12 ^th of March, 2025 (this was to clarify some potential uncertainty in this regard arising from the Circuit Family Court proceedings), was present for the hearing and the submissions, accompanying his father, the husband.

3 After negotiations between Senior Counsel on the 25 ^th of March, the Court was advised after lunch by Senior Counsel for the wife that the case had settled and needed to be reduced to writing. The Court gave the parties until 4.15p.m. that day if it was ready to rule and otherwise adjourned the matter into the following morning at 11.00 a.m.

4 I was informed on the morning of the 26 ^th March 2025 that the wife was no longer satisfied with the arrangements and that she wished to proceed for hearing. Counsel for the husband then informed me that it was the husband's position that the matter was settled and that the case should proceed on that basis. Counsel for the wife disputes that there is a legally binding settlement in this instance.

5 Oral and written submissions were received from the parties in relation to the issues arising.

6 It is important to clearly set out that I have no knowledge of the terms of settlement or alleged terms of settlement. No such details have been given to me and it was entirely appropriate that no such details be provided to me until the issue of whether or not the case had settled in a legally effective or relevant manner has been resolved.

7 I have not heard any evidence in relation to this matter i.e. the matter of whether a compromise agreement has been reached or not. Clearly, submissions were made to the court by Counsel in the context of keeping the court informed of progress in discussions between the parties on the 25 ^th March 2025.

8 The issues arising are as follows:

• (a) Can oral settlements be achieved in family law proceedings?

• (b) If so, how are the terms of such settlements to be ascertained or determined in the event that there is a subsequent dispute in this regard?

• (c) Is compliance with the Statute of Frauds/ Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act, 2009 required where settlement terms between the parties include property adjustment orders or orders for the disposition of land?

• (d) What is the role of such settlements in the exercise by the Court of its functions under the relevant matrimonial legislation? The position in this regard is complicated by the fact that these are proceedings for judicial separation under the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989 (“the 1989 Act”) and the Family Law Act, 1995 (“the 1995 Act”) which were ruled by the Circuit Family Court under the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) (which that Court undoubtedly had jurisdiction to do under section 39(4) of the 1996 Act). A Notice of Appeal from the whole of the Order of the Circuit Family Court has been filed as I understand it (I was not provided with a copy of such Notice of Appeal) and therefore the matter comes before me under the 1989 and 1995 Act, although I obviously have the same jurisdiction to determine the matter as an application for a divorce decree as the first instance court had.

9 In the circumstances which pertain in this case, I considered it imperative that a transcript of the relevant information which was indicated to me on the 25 ^th March 2025 be prepared and, consequently, I arranged for this to be done. It is annexed hereto at Annex “A”.

10 The reason why I consider the transcript important is that the husband relies upon what the court was informed as being proof of settlement. Of course, if the matter had settled, so informing the Court would be but one route by which settlement could be contended. Even if the fact of settlement was not communicated to the court, that there was such settlement and the terms of such settlement are matters which could be argued by adducing evidence in this regard. This would likely involve evidence being given by Counsel involved in the negotiation. I have heard no such evidence and I therefore cannot make any determination in this regard.

11 Therefore, it seems to me that there are three possible routes of travel in the context of progressing this matter:

• (a) Was the court definitively informed that the matter had settled and, if so, the legal status of oral settlement must be considered and ascertained? For the reasons stated below, I answer the first part of this question in the negative. As to the second issue, the legal status of an oral settlement in family law litigation such as the present (divorce or judicial separation) is considered below.

• (b) If the court was not so informed...