The ex-wife of an Irish businessman is to get £5 million plus 51 per cent of his pension following a majority decision of the Supreme Court to dismiss his appeal against High Court findings in family law proceedings.
The High Court had granted the couple, who have three children, a divorce. 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.
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 for the High Court judge to have adopted.
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 judgement 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.