High Court<\/a> orders for proper provision in judicial separation proceedings, Judge Nuala Jackson rejected the woman\u2019s arguments that the assets should be divided on a 50\/50 basis. <\/p>\nThe orders suggest the woman will get assets worth in excess of \u20ac2.5 million, with the man getting the remainder. <\/p>\n
The judge particularly took into account that the successful business from which the family got most of its income derived from the man\u2019s family before the marriage.<\/p>\n
Another core reason was her finding the income generated by some of the assets was \u201cessential\u201d to carrying on the business from which the man\u2019s income derives. <\/p>\n
In her judgment published this week, the judge said the couple, aged in their 50s, had a long marriage before they separated in recent years.<\/p>\n
It was \u201ca testament\u201d to them they had agreed, via mediation, appropriate arrangements for their care of their children, who have a positive relationship with both parents. <\/p>\n
Both agreed a decree of judicial separation should be granted but disagreed over what amounted to proper provision for them and their children.<\/p>\n
The assets included the detached family home valued at about \u20ac1.5 million; the business valued at about \u20ac2.75 million; a house valued at about \u20ac420,000 bought by the woman before the marriage; and another house valued at \u20ac430,000 in the man\u2019s name. <\/p>\n
Most of the controversy, the judge noted, related to land held in the sole name of the man from where his business operates. <\/p>\n
The man argued this was gifted to him from his family while the woman argued the land had valuable development potential and could be sold and the business relocated to another site. <\/p>\n
The judge adopted the \u20ac2.25 million agreed valuation for this property, while bearing in mind any future sale of it could result in \u201csome degree of windfall\u201d.<\/p>\n
The business had an agreed valuation of about \u20ac2.7 million, including the land on which it was located. The company was formed by the man and a relative and the current shareholders were the man and his estranged wife, with him holding the bulk of the shares. The man\u2019s evidence was \u201csomewhat evasive and unsatisfactory\u201d in relation to future plans of the company, the judge said.<\/p>\n
From the evidence, Jackson formed the impression of \u201ca busy, happy, financially comfortable family\u201d over many years. The man and woman were hard-working and both played a substantial role in the household.<\/p>\n
The business provides the bulk of the family\u2019s financial support and there was a history of family expenditure greatly exceeding the incomes of both parties which was a matter \u201cof significant complaint\u201d by the man but \u201centirely underplayed\u201d by the woman.<\/p>\n
This lifestyle in excess of income was funded by asset disposals over the years but lifestyle funded from capital \u201ccan only be of limited duration\u201d, the judge said.<\/p>\n
The man was aggrieved over the woman having embarked on an extramarital relationship and the loss of his marriage, while she alleged challenges from his behaviour during the Covid pandemic. <\/p>\n
There was no suggestion of any conduct by either which should influence the court\u2019s decision on proper provision, the judge said.<\/p>\n
Proper provision, she held, would be achieved by orders including for sale of the family home with all net proceeds to the woman. The woman retains the \u20ac420,000 property she acquired before marriage, will be paid a \u20ac100,000 lump sum by the man and one of his pensions, and have the option to sell her shareholding in the business. She retains jewellery valued by the man at \u20ac37,000 and other assets, including a car.<\/p>\n
The man retains all other assets in his sworn statement of means, including his company and land, the property valued at \u20ac430,000, his pension entitlements and the proceeds of any joint bank accounts. <\/p>\n
Child maintenance will be divided equally between both, with the man also paying school fees and various other expenses.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A judge has made orders distributing an estimated \u20ac6 million in assets between an estranged couple, including a…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":37157,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[72,73,61,60],"class_list":["post-293985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-business","tag-business","tag-high-court","tag-ie","tag-ireland"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/293985","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=293985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/293985\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/37157"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=293985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=293985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=293985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}