The ex-wife of an Irish businessman is to get £5 million plus 51 per cent of his pension following a four-one majority decision of the Supreme Court yesterday dismissing his appeal against High Court findings in family law proceedings.
The High Court had granted the couple, who have three children, a divorce.
During family law proceedings, the businessman had not denied his ex-wife's claim that he had a number of extra-marital affairs during a "turbulent" marriage.
At the time of the High Court hearing, the man had been in a relationship for two years with a new partner who had given birth to their child. It was his intention to marry his new partner on the grant of the divorce decree, the court was told.
The businessman appealed against the High Court order requiring his ex-wife to be paid a lump sum of £5 million in instalments over 18 months and 55 per cent of the benefits of his pension. His former wife was said to have had around £1 million of her own assets.
In his decision yesterday, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said the evidence had been that the businessman had built up a lucrative practice and had made shrewd property investments. There was no complete agreement as to his financial worth but it was in the order of £14 million.
The Chief Justice said it had not been suggested the High Court judge erred in principle in deciding to give a lump sum payment without any provision for periodic payments by way of maintenance. The £5 million, properly managed and invested, would undoubtedly give the man's ex-wife financial security for the rest of her life.
The approach of the High Court judge appeared to have been to effect a "clean break" between the parties in financial terms insofar as that was possible. Given the desirability of avoiding future litigation between spouses whose marriage had irretrievably broken down, the Chief Justice said he had no doubt this was the correct approach.
Mr Justice Keane said the man had transferred his interest in the family home to his ex-wife as well as leaving a number of valuable paintings and antiques. He had also transferred to her a house in Dublin. A significant proportion of the man's assets was a Dublin office block with a net valuation of £11.45 million.
The judge said lawyers for the husband had submitted that the trial judge had erred in treating as applicable, as he apparently did, the approach adopted to cases of this nature, described in England as "big money cases". The lawyers claimed that in English law the effect of a divorce was to achieve a "clean break" between spouses.
It was argued on behalf of the businessman that it was clear from a recent Supreme Court judgment that it was not possible to adopt the "clean break" approach in Irish law. It was argued Irish legislation was designed to allow a dependent spouse to be financially supported throughout their life by the other spouse.
It was contended the trial judge, as a result, had been in error in not taking into account when making provision for the £5 million payment that the man's ex-wife would be entitled, as long as she remained unmarried, to return to the court to seek further maintenance or financial provision.
Lawyers for the ex-wife submitted that while the doctrine of the "clean break" did not apply in Ireland, in a case such as this where the resources were so ample as to render possible the provision of a relatively large sum, there was no reason to anticipate future applications on behalf of the ex-wife for maintenance or other support.
However, while Irish legislation was careful to avoid going as far as the English legislation in adopting the "clean break" approach, not least because of constitutional constraints, it was not correct to say that the legislation went so far as virtually to prevent financial finality, Mr Justice Keane said.
In cases such as this, where there were substantial assets and where the parties were unable to agreee, the court would inevitably have to decide how the assets should be divided and whether that division should take the form of a lump sum or of a property adjustment order.
The other judges, who gave separate judgments supporting the Chief Justice were Ms Justice Denham, Mr Justice Murray and Mr Justice Fennelly. They all agreed that the High Court provision allowing the ex-wife a 55 per cent portion of the businessman's pension should be reduced to 51 per cent.
In a dissenting judgment,Mr Justice Murphy said that, in his view, a "clean break" was not an available option here.