E.G. v J.G. (Maintenance)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Justice Murphy |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] IEHC 4 |
| Docket Number | [2002 No. 106M] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 29 April 2003 |
[2003] IEHC 4
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
FAMILY LAW ACT 1995 S7
FAMILY LAW ACT 1995 S16
T V T 2002 3 IR 355 2003 1 ILRM 321 2002/26/6842
K(M) V K(J P) UNREP O'NEILL 24.1.2003
B(R) V B(M) 1989 IR 412
P(C) V P(D) 1983 3 ILRM 380
Synopsis:
FAMILY LAW
Maintenance
Interm maintenance - Care of children and maintenance of home - Family Law Act, 1995, section 7 (2002/106M - Murphy J - 29/04/2003)
G (E) v G (J) - [2003] 2 IR 306
The applicant sought an order pursuant to s. 7 of the Family Law Act, 1995 granting maintenance pending suit for her support and the support of the dependent children of the marriage.
Held by Murphy J. in making an interim order for maintenance in the sum of €€,000 per month until the determination of the action that the applicant had taken upon herself the prime care of the children and the maintenance of the home.
Justice Murphy dated the 29th day of April, 2003.
By notice of Motion dated the 12 th December, 2002 the applicant sought an order pursuant to section 7 of the Family Law Act, 1995granting the applicant maintenance pending suit for her support and the support of the dependant children of the marriage.
The matter came for hearing on the 24 th January, 2003 and was adjourned to the 17 th February for cross examination of the respondent.
The applicant's affidavit referred to the marriage dated the 2 nd August, 1997 and the birth of two daughters on the 27 th February, 1999 and the 30 th May, 2001. The children were aged almost four and under two at the date of the hearing.
The applicant says that she is on leave from work since the 8 th January, 2001. The respondent is self-employed having recently sold his business for a substantial profit.
The responded, unhappy differences having arisen, vacated the family home on the 22 nd September, 2002 and, the applicant says, is living in costly club accommodation. One month later the parties, by written agreement, agreed that the respondent should remain away from the family home until further order of the Court.
The elder infant daughter is recovering from cancer. Certain reports from her consultants were referred to. The younger daughter suffers from an immune deficiency disorder. Her health difficulties are less serious than those of the elder daughter. Nonetheless the second daughter's illness requires attendances with various specialists and hospitals and is very disruptive. The applicant refers to a consultant paediatric immunologist's report.
For this reason the applicant had taken unpaid leave from her employment. In addition while the parties were living together, they employed a fulltime child minder with a high level of experience to deal with such a demanding in a particular situation costing £3,870 per month. The costs were discharged by the respondent husband. The last payment made by him was to cover the period to the end of October, 2002.
The applicant says that at that time the respondent interfered with the then existing childminding arrangements. The childminder gave notice that she intended to cease work. The applicant had then to hire a new childminder from an agency which cost £2,701 per month.
As a result of this cost, the applicant says that she had to use her savings and had incurred debts of approximately £7,753 on her credit card. She incurred expenditure of approximately £16,430 since September, 2002 and referred to her credit card bill.
The applicant says her monthly outgoings, including child minding expenses of £4,270, was over £13,000. The applicant refers to the respondent's wealth, property and investments.
By letter dated the 12 th November, 2002, her solicitors wrote to the respondents solicitors requesting a reasonable sum for interim maintenance. No reply was received. A sum of £5,000 was lodged to her account on the 26 th November, 2002 by the respondent as the amount which the respondent determined he was going to pay to the applicant each month for her support and that of the two dependant children.
The applicant's outgoings, as per the affidavit of the 4 thDecember, 2002 give a monthly sum of £13,000.
This affidavit repeats and expands some of the averments in the grounding affidavit. It refers in particular to the critical medical condition of the children and the requirements that displaced on her time and care. She also refers to the allegations made by the respondent which he denies.
Reference is also made to her expenses and her means.
She says that in July, 2002 the respondent withdrew a sum of over £1m from the Bank. She says that he has spent almost £400,000 between the 9 th July, 2002, and the 19 th December, 2002, which she calculates as a figure of over £78,000 per month on average. The respondent, she says, has a substantial share portfolio.
It is common case that the illness of the elder daughter had a profound effect on the relationship. The applicant recognises that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and that there is no possibility of reconciliation between them. However she wants to ensure that the children are not adversely affected by the breakdown. She says that the respondent's lodgement of £5000 per month is insufficient to discharge the usual and necessary outgoings required. Her personal means are not as significant as the respondent had averred. Her financial position is modest compared to his.
The respondent, by the first affidavit dated 21 st January 2003, says that he sold his company for £2.25m and is restrained from being employed in that business. He says he was a fulltime parent from January, 2001 and had given some time on a voluntary basis to a number of organisations. He says he intends to start a new business but will not if he has custody of the children. The applicant, he says, had obtained an interim ex parte sole custody order on the 30 thSeptember 2002 and an ex parte barring order. He says that the children are well looked after when in his care and in the care of his family some of whom are nurses.
He disagrees with the expenses required for a childminder. He understands that the current childminder is in receipt of £400 per week net. When he left the family home he told the applicant by telephone that there was £2,000 in cash left there. The applicant was continually abusive to him. He maintained contact with the children's godparents.
He says that the childminders left because the applicant said that one of them was negligent, another that she was required to do housework and a third because of the applicant's inappropriate behaviour.
He says that arrangements in relation to meeting the children were changed as a result of which he saw both children together on nine occasions in 2½ months. He is conscious of the needs of the children and he says he cares for them appropriately. He wishes to see the children for extended periods rather than the two hour periods agreed. He feels obliged to have a security guard with him when collecting or delivering the children so as to be a witness to any alleged incidents.
He says that in addition to the monthly sum of £5,000 he has made £3,000 available at Christmas. He also discharged the sum directed by the High Court being 2/3 of the finder's fee due to the childminding agency on the 20 th January, 2001.
He says that the applicant owns land and has a house in the country. In addition she has £35,000 in a bank account into which he lodges the maintenance payments and also receives a social welfare payment.
He believes that, the grocery expenditure to be excessive.
He doesn't dispute the medical reports but says that fees were made at a time when the elder daughter was gravely ill. She is now well. The younger daughter's progress is normal for her age.
The amount remaining from the sale of his business is subject to an outstanding tax liability of £100,000.
He says he is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial