K. v K

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1980
• Date: 01 January 1980
• Court: High Court

(H.C.)

K

and

K

Wife's application for declaration of interest - Leasehold interests -Family home in sole name of defendant husband - Plaintiff wife making no initial contribution to purchase - Contribution by working after marriage - Retail jewellery business - Equal50% shares - No specific dividend or salary - Profits applied to maintenance of family -Business contributed to family budget - Business failing - Family home loans discharged - Proportion by each party - Original cost of acquisition - Mortgage outstanding - Plaintiff paying 28% and defendant 72% - Hardware lock-up shop - Sale of leasehold interests - Rents payable - Beneficial interest 50% - Married Women's Status Act, 1957 (No. 5), s. 12.

The parties were married in September, 1968, and immediately purchased a family home at a cost of £4,500. The defendant provided initially £2,000 by means of two separate loans and raised a mortgage with Royal Liver Friendly Society for the remaining £2,500. The house was in the sole name of the defendant. The plaintiff made no contribution to the original purchase but at the commencement of the marriage, worked for a small wage out of which she contributed to maintenance of the home and the repayment of the mortgage. The husband did likewise at the same time servicing a Credit Union debt of £1,000. In the spring 1970, the parties commenced a retail jewellery business and ran it by means of a limited liability company in which each held a 50% share. The defendant who was not present at the hearing claimed that at the formation of the company a mistake had been made by the solicitor and the plaintiff's wife should only have been given a 20% share in the company. No attempt was made subsequently to correct or amend this mistake and the defendant was not estopped from contending that other than a 50% share was owned by the plaintiff. Both parties took an active part in the running of the business, the plaintiff wholetime in the retail selling and the defendant, whilst working at a regular job, bought from wholesalers and arranged finances and other aspects of the business. No specific dividend or salary was paid to either party but the profits earned were applied to the running of the family home and the repayment of the mortgage. Wages earned by the defendant were used by him to repay loans to create savings for use in the business. There was considerable conflict of evidence...