T. (D.) v T. (C.)

In this case, the Supreme Court articulated its view of the nature of marriage and how the value of the contributions of the spouses should relate to property entitlements under Irish law. Referencing the Family Law (Divorcer) Act 1996, the Supreme Court noted that the legislature had not made any mandatory requirements regarding the division of assets in divorce and judicial separation cases; discretion had been left to the court to consider what would be the best and most just resolution of the case at hand. Appellate courts should, to a certain degree, give latitude to the discretion of the trial judge in these matters. The parties had a “turbulent” marriage. During the marriage, the respondent-wife: sold her pre-marital home (the proceeds of which were used as marital property), significantly pulled back from her career as a general practitioner focus on the marriage and couple’s children, and worked as a receptionist for her husband’s medical practice to save him money. The applicant-husband had affairs with multiple women, then filed for divorce when he had a child with another woman and decided to marry her. He transferred the family’s house, including some of the art and furnishings, to the respondent and paid about ₤400 per week in child support, which the High Court ordered increased to ₤800 per week. The Court stated that courts should incorporate the value of a spouse’s work performed at home as well as the factors listed in the Family Law Act (including but not limited to income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources, any physical or mental disability of either spouse, past and future contributions each spouse has made – or is likely to make – to the family welfare, and the conduct of the spouses). In this case, the applicant-husband had assets of at least ₤14 million and a current salary of about ₤210,000. The respondent-wife had about ₤1 million and uncertain salary; she requested between 33-50% of the applicant’s assets and a pension adjustment order. The High Court granted the respondent ₤5 million to be paid over 18 months and 55% of the applicant’s pension. On appeal, the applicant asked the Court to give greater weight to, among other factors, the facts (i) that he transferred 30% of his assets to the respondent when the marriage broke down and (ii) that he would have new responsibilities in his next marriage. The Court was of the view that ‘equality’ did not apply in this context, but that the courts are obliged to make ‘proper provision’ for both spouses having regard to the circumstances. In this case, the Court affirmed that the respondent was entitled 38% (approximately ₤5 million) of the total net assets, but revised the pension adjustment to 49-51% in favour of the respondent.