# IEHC 72 — IEHC 72 — High Court **Numéro de cause:** IEHC 72 **ECLI:** ECLI:IE:HC:2026:72 **Autorité / Tribunal:** High Court **Date de la décision:** 2026 **Canonical Legislator URL:** https://legislator.ch/fr/case/ie/2026_IEHC_72/iehc-72-iehc-72-high-court ## Synthèse de l'arrêt (Faits & Considérants) APPROVED REDACTED FOR PUBLICATION THE HIGH COURT FAMILY LAW IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL SEPARATION AND FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT, 1989 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT, 1995 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT, 1996 (AS AMENDED) AND THE FAMILY LAW ACT, 2019 [2026] IEHC 72 Record No. HM2024/123 Between: J.K.M. Applicant -AND- L.M. Respondent Judgment of Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson delivered on the ... ## Regeste / Sommaire juridique APPROVED REDACTED FOR PUBLICATION THE HIGH COURT FAMILY LAW IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL SEPARATION AND FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT, 1989 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT, 1995 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT, 1996 (AS AMENDED) AND THE FAMILY LAW ACT, 2019 [2026] IEHC 72 Record No. HM2024/123 Between: J.K.M. Applicant -AND- L.M. Respondent Judgment of Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson delivered on the ... ## Texte intégral de la décision APPROVED REDACTED FOR PUBLICATION THE HIGH COURT FAMILY LAW IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL SEPARATION AND FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT, 1989 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT, 1995 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT, 1996 (AS AMENDED) AND THE FAMILY LAW ACT, 2019 [2026] IEHC 72 Record No. HM2024/123 Between: J.K.M. Applicant -AND- L.M. Respondent Judgment of Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson delivered on the 13th day of January 2026. INTRODUCTION 1. The parties in this matter seek a Decree of Judicial Separation together with ancillary reliefs. It is a testament to the positive aspects of their ongoing relationship that they have, with the assistance of mediation, settled between them the appropriate arrangements to pertain in relation to their children. Indeed, it is to their credit that they have, it would appear successfully, implemented a “nesting” arrangement in relation to their children since their separation in 2023. This is a difficult arrangement to adhere to, but they have done so in order to achieve stability for their children. It would appear that this has operated to the benefit of the children as they all seem to be progressing well, subject to the normal vagaries of teenage life, and they have a strong and positive relationship with both parents which will undoubtedly inure to their benefit into the future. There were some disagreements between the parties as to the likely future interests and trajectories of the children. I will consider these below insofar as they are relevant to the issue of financial provision. 2. The parties are agreed that a Decree of Judicial Separation ought to be granted. It is furthermore clear that no normal marital relationship has existed between them for the past twelve months. Therefore, I will grant a Decree of Judicial Separation pursuant to section 2(1)(f) of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989 (hereinafter “the 1989 Act”). 3. It is in relation to what is appropriate financial provision such as would make proper provision for the parties and their children that the parties are in disagreement. In this judgment I will set out; A. The history of the relationship of the parties and their marriage; B. The history of the business which provides the bulk of the financial support for the family (there is little dispute in relation to A. and B.); C. The agreed facts relevant to the issue of proper provision; D. Open proposals and submissions of the parties; E. The facts in dispute and my determinations in respect of such facts on the evidence which I have heard and seen; F. The applicable legal principles, referencing how they relate to the parties’ circumstances; G. My determination as to what constitutes proper provision on the facts of the instant case. 4. I wish to thank Counsel herein for their most useful and comprehensive submissions which have been helpful to me. A. HISTORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP AND MARRIAGE 5. The parties were brought up in the same area and had known each other for many years before their relationship commenced. They became romantically involved in or about 2004 and married in 2006. The parties have been married for almost 20 years (17.5 years to the date of separation in July 2023). The parties are in or about 50 years of age, the Applicant slightly younger and the Respondent slightly older. They co-habited in a property owned by the Respondent prior to marriage. While they were both relatively young, they were well established, and this speaks to their industriousness. The Applicant, having left school at a young age, had completed courses of study leading to very practical and marketable qualifications. She was in permanent and pensionable employment having worked in a number of different enterprises since leaving school. She had her own house and was discharging encumbrances relating to it. This had come about with the assistance of her family. The Respondent was likewise in gainful employment. He too had left school at a young age and had proceeded into a family business with his father. He clearly worked hard in this business and assisted his family of origin and provided stability for the business in the context of a family tragedy. He had acquired a house, which he then sold and acquired an alternative property, the grounds of which were developed with a second property. The original property on the site was then sold with the second property being retained to the current time. The Applicant also retained her pre-marriage property. Both were rented, yielding a comfortable return, over many years. The Respondent now resides in the property acquired pre-marriage by the Applicant (when not in the family home with the children)1 and the Respondent’s pre- marriage property houses employees of the family business. In consequence, there is no longer a rental income from the former. The rental income from the latter appears to be paid to a company established to deal with employment contracts for the workforce of the main family business. These businesses will be considered in greater detail below. There are relatively modest encumbrances on both of these properties which are discharged from a bank account in the name of the Respondent and funded by him. 6. The parties wished to start a family after marriage but, regrettably, their early marriage experiences in this regard were not positive with the Applicant suffering two miscarriages. Thereafter, the parties had three children over a short period of time 1 The Applicant suggested in her evidence that she also resides in this property when she is not in the family home with the children, but she was cross-examined about this, and it would appear that she spends the bulk of such periods with her now partner who resides in another part of the country. I do not believe that much turns on this save that there was somewhat of a lack of candour on her part in this regard. such that there were three children under 5 years of age. The children are now aged 17.5 years, 16 years and 14 years and, consequently, all remain dependent. Not surprisingly in view of the pregnancy history of the Applicant and the commitment involved in the nurture and upbringing of small children, the Applicant ceased working and became a full-time mother and homemaker. There was some dispute as to the circumstances in which this occurred, but my overall assessment of the evidence is that this was a joint decision and simply made sense in the context of the circumstances of the parties which were relatively financially comfortable for a young couple. There is no doubt that the Applicant was in permanent and pensionable employment. I consider it to be in the realms of speculation as to whether she would have continued in this employment in the long term. What is clear, and in particular is so having regard to her industriousness from a very young age, is that had she not had the family duties and child rearing commitments which arose in the context of the marriage, it is highly unlikely that she would not have continued in some sort of gainful occupation. 7. The parties both had an interest in equestrian activities prior to marriage. The Applicant owned her own horse. Both were involved in hunting. It is clear that this is an interest which both continued to have during the marriage as very considerable sums were expended in the development of facilities pertaining to horses and horse- riding activities adjacent to the now family home which was built shortly after the marriage. It is also clear from the evidence that the interest of the Respondent in equestrian activities has diminished while that of the Applicant has increased. The Applicant’s friendship groups are within this fraternity and her now relationship with a third party developed in the context of this milieu. This has resulted in a somewhat polarised view being taken by each of the parties in relation to the significance of equestrian activities in the lives of the family and, in particular, the children. All of the children have had an involvement in these activities in the past. One of the children in particular enjoyed considerable success and displayed considerable talent in the context of these activities. As is not unusual with children and teenagers, their interest has waxed and waned. Some have moved on to other interests while one of the children has revitalised her interest in horses. Undoubtedly, the shifting sands of interests will continue and may or may not involve these activities. The Applicant aspires to the children having continued involvement and continued opportunities for involvement in such activities. The Respondent is somewhat ambivalent in this regard. I formed the view from his evidence that he is aggrieved about the loss of his marriage and is greatly hurt by the Applicant’s new relationship, and he is negative towards these equestrian activities which he sees as having been the cause of the current state of affairs and the environment in which the destruction of the marriage occurred. His hurt is understandable, but it was fairly conceded by Mr. Durcan SC on his behalf that there was no suggestion that there was any conduct which might be described as gross and obvious, or which is such that I ought to have regard to it in making proper provision. 8. I formed the impression of a busy, happy, financially comfortable family over many years. The Respondent is hard-working and committed to his business which engages his attentions to a considerable degree. The nature and location of the business allowed him to entwine family life with a very busy business life and he was most committed to providing a fine standard of living for his family. The Applicant is likewise hard-working. She looked after the family home, was primary carer for the children (with some childcare/home help assistance over the years) and was very actively involved in the children’s extra-curricular and educational activities, including the time-consuming hobby of equestrian activities. Allegations of secretiveness and a lack of communication were levelled by the Applicant against the Respondent. The Respondent was somewhat ungenerous and lacking in recognition of the role of the Applicant in the maintenance of a busy household. However, overall, I formed the view that much of these attitudes came from the trauma of separation and relationship deterioration and breakdown. In truth there was a busy household in which both played a substantial role. The Applicant asserts challenges arising from the Respondent’s behaviour during Covid. The pandemic was a challenging time for many families. The Respondent alleges furtive behaviour on the part of the Applicant in the context of her extra-marital relationship. Overall, it would appear that each of the parties has their own perspectives but there is no doubt that the marital relationship has ceased to be normal for in excess of the legislatively prescribed period and there has been no conduct by either party which is relevant to the issues which I have to determine. B. HISTORY OF THE BUSINESS 9. The Respondent’s gainful occupation is a specialist farming business. The history of this business is not untypical, involving huge commitment and input by his family of origin. The business is now operated through two companies, A Ltd and B Ltd, with A Ltd being the main business, the B Ltd playing a supportive role in the context of the work force required by A Ltd. A Ltd was formed in or about 2002. The parties are both directors of it and the shareholdings are 15% (Applicant) and 85% (Respondent). The smaller, ancillary company, B Ltd, is owned by the Respondent. B Ltd is of little value and is not of huge significance in the overall financial circumstances pertaining but it does receive the rental income from the Respondent’s pre-marriage residential property although he continues to pay the mortgage thereon from his personal resources. B Ltd also provides other accommodation for employees of A Ltd but the rental income is received by the Respondent. This is a modest rental income, and I was informed that it was being paid to the Respondent in error. C. AGREED FACTS 10. There was a very impressive degree of agreement between the parties in this case. D v D schedules were provided in advance of the case and there was but modest disparity between them relating to minor matters such as jewellery, house contents and the capitalisation of a modest pension entitlement of the Applicant. Agreed property valuations had been prepared and were proffered to me. Company valuations were agreed. NET ASSETS (per Affidavit of Means of the Applicant of 18th June 2025 and Affidavit of Means of the Respondent of the 27th August 2025) 11. The family home: this is a most comfortable and well-appointed property comprising a four bedroomed, detached house. The entirety of the property comprises 7.85 acres and there are extensive gardens and equestrian facilities. While the house and the bulk of the site is now held in the joint names of the parties (the lands having been originally transferred to the Respondent in 2010 by his father), a portion of the lands is held by A Ltd based upon a historic transaction where this plot was sold to the company to raise funds for family usage. There is an agreed valuation of €1,500,000 for the whole (€1,300,000 for the portion held in the names of the parties and €200,000 for the portion held by A Ltd. – although the Applicant contended that this latter valuation is based upon it being disposed of with the family home and that it would not attract this value on its own. This small adjacent parcel, being owned by A Ltd, is included within the valuation of that company). There will be capital gains tax payable on disposal of the portion owned by A Ltd and also on a portion of the lands attaching to the family home, the acreage concerned being in excess of what will attract principal private residence relief. There is a mortgage outstanding on this property in the sum of €141,000. 12. Property 1: this is the Applicant’s pre-marriage property and remains held in her sole name. It has an agreed value of €420,000. There is an outstanding encumbrance upon it in the sum of €10,900. This property is not currently rented (being the property used by the family, primarily the Respondent, for residential purposes in the context of separation). While there may be some tax relief available in the event of sale on the basis of the previous residence of the Applicant and the more recent family residence in it, there would undoubtedly be capital gains tax payable in the event of sale, the property having been rented to third parties for many years. The payments in respect of the encumbrance are discharged by the Applicant. 13. Property 2: this is the property built adjacent to the pre-marriage property of the Respondent, the original property having been sold and the built property retained. This property is currently rented to B Ltd for accommodation use by employees of A Ltd. This property is held in the sole name of the Respondent. There is an agreed market value of €430,000 with the property encumbered in the sum of €95,000. This mortgage is discharged from the personal resources of the parties. The capital gains tax situation is likely to be non-dissimilar to property 1 referenced above. 14. Property 3: this property, which comprises 5.83 acres, is held in the sole name of the Respondent and derived from his family of origin. The property was transferred to the Respondent from his family of origin in or about 2013. The business of A Ltd operates from premises situate on this property. There is an agreed market valuation of €2,550,000. It is in relation to this premises and the future intended use of it that there was most controversy. The Respondent says that this is an asset of a different category to the three above as it was gifted to him by his family of origin. He contends that this is an integral part of the business and is not realisable, being the location from which the business operates. The Applicant refers to the urban location of this property and contends that there has long been a plan that the business would move from this location to a new, more rural location. She contends that such an alternative location for the business was acquired being the lands at Property 4 referred to below and that the intention is to move the business to this new location, in which instance property 3 would be sold and would be most valuable development land in that context, bearing in mind its residentially advantageous location. The Respondent denies any such intention and says that the costs of any such move would be prohibitive. 15. I was provided with a valuation from Sherry Fitzgerald Cumisky Kelly dated September 2024. This valuation classifies the property as “Agricultural” and an “Agri Business Premises”. The facilities on this premises comprise three sheds with a total square metreage of 1,390 and three other business-related premises with a total area of 10, 791 square metres. In relation to the latter mentioned category of premises, the valuation states that these facilities “appear to have reached the end of their useful life.” The valuation proceeds to state: “…, there are concrete yards, fuel and chemical stores and portacabin accommodation all of which, whilst useful for current purposes, will have to be removed and/or investigated prior to the commencement of any construction.” The property is across two zoning matrices – residential and Town and District Centre (the acreages in each respective zoning matrix are not disclosed). Comparator residential zoned lands in the area range between €437,600 per acre and €583,600 per acre. Having assessed same, the valuer applied the lower valuation (€437,600) to the full area of the site (5.83 acres) and thus reaches the valuation of €2,550,000. Having considered all of the factors referenced by the valuer including in relation to the comparators, I conclude that there is potential that future disposal might be at a higher valuation. The future value in terms of development potential is difficult to predict. For the purposes of this decision, I believe it appropriate to adopt the agreed valuation while bearing in mind that the sale of this asset may result in some degree of windfall. 16. A Ltd: this company has an agreed valuation of €2,690,154 (which includes the real assets being the Property 4 lands and the parcel adjacent to the family home). This company was formed in 2002, with the Respondent and his father being the original shareholders, the latter subsequently transferring his shareholding to the Respondent. Since 2010, it has been held as to 15% by the Applicant and 85% by the Respondent, the Respondent having transferred this portion of his shareholding to the Applicant. The Applicant has been a director (with the Respondent) since that date. This company operates a business from which the support of the family primarily derives and, while the legal framework of the business may vary from previously, the origins of the business are from the family of origin of the Respondent. The controversy in relation to the company is interlinked with property 3 and the relocation of the business to elsewhere. In or about 2018, A Ltd purchased lands at Property 4 comprising 43.5 acres. There is an agreed valuation of these lands in the sum of €1,100,000, which valuation is obviously included in the valuation of the company, A Ltd, the property being owned by it. The evidence of the Respondent was somewhat evasive and unsatisfactory in relation to these lands and the future plans of the company. It is clear that a substantial shed has been constructed on the property which the Respondent contended was for storage only. It is to this site that the Applicant contends it is planned to relocate the business, leaving the valuable town site available for disposal, undoubtedly with development potential. I will deal with this specific (and probably most contentious issue in this case) below. 17. B Ltd: this company would not appear to have a value, being an employment contract vehicle for the other company. The Respondent is a 100% shareholder of this company. 18. Miscellaneous other assets: A. The Respondent has the benefit of director’s loans due from the companies totalling €276,273. B. The parties each have cars (that used by the Applicant, is registered in the name of A Ltd). C. There are bank accounts with total (albeit fluctuating) balances of approximately €53,000 (circa €6,000 Applicant and circa €47,000 Respondent). D. There are household contents. E. There is some bloodstock, valued at approximately €40,000. F. There is jewellery which the Respondent values at €37,000. The Applicant does not attribute a value to this. 19. Pensions: 20. The Respondent has two pensions which are valued at €432,547. 21. The Applicant has a modest pension entitlement from a pre-marriage employment. There was a disparity in valuation of this as between the parties (€6,271 vs. €22,994, a difference of €16,723). I do not believe that much turns on this. I have determined that the proposal by the Respondent to transfer to the Applicant by way of pension adjustment order the larger of his pension policies ([REDACTED]) is appropriate with the Applicant to retain her modest pension also. 22. The D v D schedules: I was provided with two such schedules. One was marked as being that of the Applicant and the other that of the Respondent. These schedules, most appropriately, set out net values for properties, most particularly having regard to taxation implications of disposal. The differences between them were not substantial relating only to the jewellery and pension of the Applicant referenced above. INCOME OF THE PARTIES 23. The Applicant is in receipt of an income from A Ltd amounting to €30,250 gross per annum, resulting in receipt of €2,088 net per month. She also receives the children’s allowance, currently €420. There is no rental income received from her property as it is now used by the family for residential purposes in the context of separation. 24. The Affidavit of Means of the Respondent referenced an annual income of €78,000 gross (€53,323 net). It also references rental income from property 4, but it would appear that this is not, in fact, received by him but rather by B Ltd. although the mortgage on the property is paid by the Respondent. 25. It became abundantly clear at hearing that the expenditure and lifestyle of the parties and of the family had over many years greatly exceeded the income being received by them both from the various sources. This was a matter of significant complaint by the Respondent and entirely underplayed by the Applicant. The evidence (which is largely uncontradicted) is that the parties have, most fortunately, had the benefit of a variety of lump sum amounts from asset disposal over the years which has funded this lifestyle in excess of income. A parcel of land ([REDACTED]) which the Respondent had received from his father was advantageously sold in 2022, but it appears that the entirety of the proceeds from this disposal have been expended on lifestyle expenses. It is an obvious fact that lifestyle funded from capital can only be of limited duration. Once the capital fund runs out, absent an alternative source of funding, the lifestyle becomes unsustainable. This would appear to be the situation which pertains in this case absent realisation of assets which are now significantly diminished and will be further curtailed when there is division of same in accordance with proper provision in the context of ancillary reliefs herein. D. OPEN PROPOSALS AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES 26. The Applicant filed a Position Paper in advance of hearing and made submissions (oral and written) after the evidential hearing concluded. The Respondent made submissions (oral and written) after the evidential hearing concluded. 27. These were all comprehensive and of very considerable assistance and I thank Counsel for them. 28. The Applicant contended that proper provision required: a. The transfer of the family home, the adjacent additional parcel and lands attaching to the family home to be transferred to the Applicant unencumbered. b. The declaration that she was entitled to the property in her sole name, subject to outstanding encumbrance. c. Maintenance now and into the future. d. Maintenance for the children during dependency. e. That the Respondent would discharge the educational costs of the children and maintain the Applicant and the children on private health and dental insurance. f. Equalisation of pensions g. A lump sum to equalize the distribution of the marital assets on a 50:50 basis (on this basis, she envisages transferring her 15% shareholding in A Ltd to the Respondent). 29. The submissions addressed the various circumstances which the legislation (section 16 of the Family Law Act, 1995) states should be taken into account in achieving proper provision. The Applicant accepts the provenance of many of the assets, being derived by way of gift/inheritance by the Respondent but contends that the authorities in this regard are distinguishable based upon the growth and development of the business over the course of the marriage. She asserts that this growth has been facilitated by the familial support provided by the Applicant who sacrificed her own career opportunities in order to do so. She references that she gave up a permanent and pensionable employment. She references the income disparity of the parties and contends that such disparity is likely to continue. She contends that the Respondent controls the income paid to him by A Ltd and that this company could afford to pay him more than it does at present. She references her financial dependency and vulnerability and her limited employment prospects. She would appear to accept that she has an earning potential, “… any gainful employment that the Applicant may acquire while continuing to support and nurture the children into adulthood would simply replace the subsistent income currently received through their company.” 30. She submits that she requires ongoing maintenance, and that the Respondent has the ability to pay such maintenance. The future financial obligations of the parties are focussed on the maintenance of the children during dependency. The comfortable standard of living enjoyed is referenced. She references her age (late 50s) when the youngest child ceases to be dependent and contrasts this with the options open to the Respondent to continue with his occupation post-normal retirement age and to continue to receive profits from the business. The long duration of the marriage is referenced. The support contribution made by her as regards the care of the family throughout the marriage is detailed and the agreement between them that each would adopt traditional marriage roles. There is much focus on the impact of marital and family decisions on the career path of the Applicant while her assumption of a family care role supported the Respondent’s ability to grow the business. The marriage is described as a “joint venture”, and she accuses the Respondent of seeking to ignore the social contract between them over the past 17 plus years. The accommodation needs of the Applicant and the children are such, she submits, that the family home should be transferred to her. She is of the view that the availability of outdoors pursuit facilities on the family home property will benefit the wellbeing of the children. She states that the accommodation needs of the Respondent in the short term may be addressed by his remaining in her property (property 1) for a limited period but that thereafter he would acquire a residential property, and she would have a rental income from property 1. This acquisition of a residence would be funded from funds from the sale of the town located property from which the business now operates. A lack of honesty and candour on his part in this regard is asserted. The respective pension positions and the advantageous future opportunities which the Respondent has in this regard are set out. She references the fact that she already holds a 15% shareholding in A Ltd. 31. The Respondent contended that proper provision required: a. That the family home be sold and the Applicant receive the entirety of the net proceeds; b. That the adjacent field owned by A Ltd be sold with the family home and the company to receive €200,000 from the proceeds of sale; c. Pending sale, the Respondent to continue to pay the mortgage and utilities on the family home; d. That the Applicant have the option to sell her shares in A Ltd (15%) to the company based upon the current agreed valuation of the company; e. The Applicant to retain property 1 with the Respondent to continue to reside there pending the sale of the family home; f. That the Applicant would continue to be employed by A Ltd on the same basis as currently and that this would continue until the family home is sold at which time the Applicant’s employment would be terminated with a termination payment of €36,000; g. Maintenance for the three dependent children of €1,500 per month divided equally between them with the Respondent additionally discharging the costs of school fees, books, uniforms, sporting and extra-curricular activities (subject to advance agreement) and health insurance; h. A lump sum payment to be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant of €63,100 (being a total of €100,000 including the interim payment referenced at m. below); i. The Respondent to keep in place the current policy of life assurance and assign it for the benefit of the Applicant’ j. A pension adjustment order to the Applicant to the Respondent’s [REDACTED] pension, valued at €266,297; k. The Applicant to retain the other assets as set out in her Affidavit of Means; l. An Order and cross Order pursuant to section 14 and section 15A (10) of the 1995 Act; m. The Applicant to retain the benefit of the €36,900 which she received by way of interim order of the 28th March 2025 (requested for payment of legal fees) and ordered subject to an acknowledgement that the sum might be taken into account by the Court when addressing the issue of proper provision at hearing; n. Save as provided for above, the Respondent to retain all of the assets in his Affidavit of Means. 32. The Respondent says that an equal division of assets in the current circumstances is contrary to precedent and principle. Reference is made to the nature of the assets and in particular their requirement for income generation, realisability and certainty. The Respondent highlights the current arrangement for the children being a fortnightly rotation (the Respondent caring for the children for 5 nights in the fortnight) in a nesting arrangement. The Respondent emphasises the provenance of the assets currently held and the role of his father in this regard. The decisions in K.C.N. v. P.N. (ancillary orders) [2024] IEHC 536 and Standish v. Standish [2025] UKSC 26 are referenced. He also references the benefit which the parties and the children received from the sale of further land assets derived from the Respondent’s family of origin. These proceeds of sale would appear to have funded the lifestyle of the parties to a significant degree. It is also referenced that other assets were disposed of over the years, the proceeds of which sales repeatedly supplemented family income and consequent expenditure.2 He references this lifestyle as “unsustainable”. The Respondent disputes that the family care needs were assumed and provided by the Applicant alone and he references home help and other assistance provided both in respect of childcare and in respect of bloodstock husbandry. He asserts an ever- increasing interest in equestrian activities by the Applicant which events took her away from the home and the family. It is contended that the ages and stages of the children and of the Applicant are such that she is well capable and able to return to the work force now and that references to her age at the time of cessation of dependency of the youngest child are not relevant in terms of occupational resumption. He also references the rental income available to her from her pre-marital property. He says that support provision for the Applicant is required only for a period of time while she prepares herself and takes steps to return to the workforce. He accepts that his income from the company might be increased “conservatively”, and he links this to the cessation of salary payment by the company to the Applicant. He emphasises the ongoing capital requirements of the business going forward (he references the need to have reserves to bolster the business in the event of “bad years”, such as occurred in 2 He references the repayment of a loan by a member of the Applicant’s family of origin (in a sum of something less that €200,000 in 2019; disposal of property in [REDACTED] in 2017 (€115,000); disposal of a parcel of land in 2022 (€1,050,000). 2023). He disputes the assertion that it is planned that the business premises move to the lands acquired in 2018 and thus to free up the current business premises for sale for development. He says that this is not supported by the evidence. (This is, obviously, a matter for me to determine). E. FACTS IN DISPUTE 33. (i) The future viability of the business and the degree of likely challenges. The Respondent was pessimistic in this regard. The Applicant was most optimistic. There is no doubt that the business is subject to a variety of imponderables from the weather to market forces. Working capital is provided annually through a stocking loan with interest being paid back monthly and the capital sum when crops mature and are sold. The evidence was of a very challenging trading year in 2023 resulting in a director’s loan having to be advanced by the Respondent to the company to deal with the capital repayment of the stocking loan. The Respondent works long hours, and he referenced the physical and mental toll which this takes. As against this, the business has been trading over many, many years and has been very successful over that period and the Respondent expressed the hope that the children would “come on board”. I concluded that this was a successful business and, while these things are never certain, is likely to remain so although there is a need for reserves to be available to protect against negative trading circumstances which may arise as has occurred. There is also likely to be capital investment required going forward to maintain/replace facilities. (ii) The plan to relocate the business premises to a green field site and the plans in consequence in relation to the development potential of the current business premises In the Respondent’s submissions at paragraph 4.4 it is stated regarding this matter: “It is submitted that the Applicant’s contention in this regard is not supported by the oral evidence of the Respondent, his accountant or the supplementary documentary evidence submitted. The planning permission sought and obtained from [REDACTED] County Council provide for limited development of the lands. Having purchased the lands in 2017 (some six year prior to the parties’ marital breakdown), it is submitted that there has been no major development of the lands at Property 4 (save for building one storage shed) and no steps taken to sell the lands at [REDACTED], as suggested by the Applicant. The Respondent gave clear and reasoned evidence as to why a sale of [REDACTED] would not be a viable option: it would not make financial sense to sell [REDACTED] to develop the site at Property 4 as the monies that might be generated from such a sale would be insufficient to replicate the infrastructure at [REDACTED] at property 4. On the other hand, no evidence was given by the Applicant to support her contention that it would be possible and practicable to relocate the business to the Property 4 lands and to establish the financial viability and reality of doing so.” 34. I do not consider that this represents the position accurately as it emerged from the evidence adduced. The Applicant gave her own oral testimony concerning the future plans to relocate the business to a green field site and, having regard to the other evidence which I have heard and seen, I believe and conclude that there were such plans although they may not have been as concrete or as advanced as the Applicant presents. My reasons for so concluding are: The evidence of the Respondent which was evasive and lacking in clarity. I conclude that there was a significant lack of candour on his part in this regard. He denied such plans although, having heard the evidence of the Respondent’s accountant, I believe there was discussion concerning this. A very significant shed (1450 square metres) has been built on the lands and photographs presented showed it to be entirely under-utilised. The emergence of the planning documents relating to the site emerged late in proceedings and showed that planning had been sought and successfully obtained for significant further developments consistent with relocation. I note from the valuation provided that the site from which the business now operates has shed space of 1390 square metres (less than the shed which has been constructed) and other related production space of 10,791 square metres. The planning for the green field site is for shed space of 1450 square metres (which shed has been constructed) and for related production space of 4,250 square metres (40% of the current), as yet unbuilt. I accept that current planning permission is for significantly less operational facilities than are currently available, but it does provide for significant development. I do not know if production methods may be adapted to accommodate such reduction, but it is clear that planning has been obtained to facilitate a more significant range of the Respondent’s business activities than was represented by him at hearing. In addition, albeit that they are of greater area, the valuation in respect of the current production facilities states that they have reached/as close to reaching the end of their useful life. The Respondent disagreed with this assessment in his oral evidence although I was informed that the valuations were agreed. The logical consequence of the independent, agreed valuation evidence is that replacement will be required whether on that site or another. I have concluded that all of these factors serve to support the contention of the Applicant. As against this, (a) there is not currently planning permission for such green field development to the extent of facilities currently available; (b) such development/replacement facilities will be expensive (the Respondent’s evidence was that replication of the current facilities would “cost millions” - his evidence was that 1 acre of production space would cost €800,000), in consequence it appears that these are expenses, it would appear from the valuation, facing the business whether relocated or not; (c) if the business is to continue to function, these facilities would require to be in place before disposal of the site from which the business currently operates and this will take time, having regard to developments to date; (d) if sold, the proceeds of sale of the current site are likely to be required to fund or partially fund new facilities. 35. The Applicant’s approach to the sale of the site and to assets generally was to ignore their fundamental and essential role in income generation by the business and the likely demands upon them for necessary future capital investment in the business. 36. The Respondent has been operating this business since, indeed before, adulthood. His father did so before him. He expressed the wish that this generational transfer would continue to his children which may or may not occur, but these are circumstances which it is appropriate that the court would have regard to. 37. The business has been the sole source of sustainable income for the family over many years. It will continue to be so for the Respondent and the children (and, as the Applicant requests periodic maintenance, on her submission, also for her) into the future. (iii) The employability and income generation potential of the Applicant. 38. The Applicant referenced the length of time it has been since she was in gainful occupation outside the family home and also the permanent and pensionable job which she left, by agreement, to address family care needs. She emphasised the ongoing care needs of the children and she wishes to be present to support them. It was clear that she had not taken any concrete steps towards returning to the workforce and her evidence in this regard was vague and imprecise. It is clear that the Applicant is a competent and able person, and she has, during the course of the marriage, gained considerable knowledge in the equestrian sphere. Her submissions were on the basis that she would not be able to return to gainful occupation until the children ceased to be dependent. 39. The Respondent did not accept that there would be any difficulty with the Applicant returning to the workforce in the immediate term. He spoke of the buoyant current jobs market, and he did not accept that her age, duration out of the workforce, childcare obligations or qualifications would impede her in this regard. As with much of the evidence, in relation to this issue, the Applicant was unduly negative and the Respondent unrealistically positive. The evidence of both was deficient in specificity. 40. I have concluded that the Applicant is in a position to take up gainful employment and the ages of the children are not such as impede this significantly. However, given that no concrete steps have been taken in this regard, it is likely to take some time for her to establish herself in this regard and I do not believe it likely that her earning capacity will be equivalent to that of the Respondent, indeed, it is likely to be significantly less. F. LEGAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE AND THEIR APPLICATION 41. I have considered all of the circumstances of this case and, in particular, the factors set out in section 16(2) of the 1995 Act. Both parties have the ability to work although the opportunities for the Applicant in this regard are considerably less than those of the Respondent having regard to her role with the children and her assumption of care duties over the course of the marriage. She has acquired a skillset in the equestrian field during the marriage, but the marketability of this skill is not something in relation to which evidence was adduced and is likely limited. The family has enjoyed a very high lifestyle during the course of the marriage, but this has been due to a variety of windfall type capital receipts over the years which were expended by them both on current expenditure. The only available asset which would create such a similar windfall into the future is the sale of the property 3 premises for development in the event that the business premises was moved to Property 4, but such a move would involve very considerable expenditure to re-establish the business elsewhere. This is an asset derived from the Respondent’s family of origin prior to marriage. At present, this property and the Property 4 property are used for purposes associated with the business of A Ltd.. Both parties have an investment property from which they can derive an income in the future. There is no such income from the Applicant’s property at present as the family are using it and the income from the Respondent’s property is being paid to B Ltd.. Both parties require accommodation to address the residential needs of themselves and the children. The children will have to be supported to cessation of dependency. However, the children, while undoubtedly requiring support and active parenting, are not of an age which precludes the Applicant re-entering the workforce. The Respondent’s evidence is that he has worked extremely hard and for long hours over a very considerable number of years and that the business is stressful and that he suffers physical and mental strain in consequence. Both parties are in middle age. Their marriage and relationship are of medium to long duration. Both parties have a positive relationship with the children, but the primary care responsibilities are with the Applicant. This is not to diminish the role of the Respondent. The evidence supports his active parental role, and it would appear that both parents are likely to continue with their respective roles in relation to the children. Family duties have impacted upon the earning capacity of the Applicant. Much was made of the permanent and pensionable employment which the Applicant left. I do not consider that the evidence supports that she would necessarily have stayed in this employment which would appear to have had its own stresses, but she presents as a resourceful person and, absent family responsibilities, she would have remained in gainful employment. She has continued with a busy and active life and the fact that this was not financially rewarding was due to the lifestyle adopted by the family. 42. There are two particular circumstances which I consider to be deserving of particular reference. The first relates to the provenance of the assets of the family. The second relates to the income generation characteristics of certain of the assets – they are essential to the carrying on the business from which the Respondent derives and will continue to derive his income. 43. In this regard, the Respondent referred me to CC v. NC [2016] IECA 410 (Hogan J.), paragraphs 27 and 32: “27. The blunt reality is that the husband had the good fortune to inherit a vast landed fortune and it is essentially this capital and income which has enabled the family to live in the style to which they have become accustomed. As YG makes clear, this is a relevant factor because Denham J. expressly stated that inherited assets are not to be treated in the same way as the joint assets of the parties acquired in the course of marriage. There are two reasons why that principle is especially relevant here. First, as both O’Higgins J. and Abbott J. recognised in their separate judgments, much of this inherited land is essentially illiquid and difficult to sell. Second, even if it could be sold, this would destroy the income generating abilities of the husband.” And “32. Given the inherited nature of the husband’s wealth and the fact that proper provision is not intended to operate as a form of wealth distribution, I find it difficult, however, to say that the sum of €3.3m. directed by O’Higgins J. – approximately 15% of the estimated net value of the husband’s assets – was inadequate for this purpose when regard is had to the size of the maintenance award. Even with the enhanced land valuations which obtained in 2005 - 2006 immediately prior to the financial crash, the sum of €3.3m. ought nevertheless to have been sufficient to enable the wife to purchase a fine country house with some land in the period from 2005 - 2006.” 44. The Respondent also referred me to the different treatment of inherited or gifted assets endorsed by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal in YG v. NG [2011] 3 IR 717 and NO v. PQ [2021] IECA 177. 45. The Applicant seeks 50:50 division of assets. She submits that the authorities referenced above are distinguishable due to the nature of the assets and due to the growth of the business during the marriage and further assets acquired during the marriage. I do not accept this distinction to be appropriate. The vast bulk of the real assets in this case derived from the family of origin of the Respondent as did the business. I do not in any manner diminish the fact that there were assets acquired during the marriage, but a very significant portion were not, and, in addition, there was considerable funding of lifestyle during the marriage also from inherited assets, the disposal of which resulted in an unsustainable lifestyle. 46. I do not consider equal division to be appropriate due to the provenance of the assets and also due to the income generation characteristics of certain of them. The Respondent income is dependent upon them. As regards provenance, Irish law is clear. Ancillary reliefs are determined not by asset division percentages but by what constitutes proper provision. Irish law does not recognise any rigid distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets. However, assets derived from outside the marriage (inheritance, gift, pre-marriage, post-separation assets) are considered to be of a somewhat different character. It is not that they cannot be availed of to make proper provision, if required, but a more calibrated approach to them is required. Can proper provision be made without them or with limited intrusion upon them? The consequence of this is that in many (if not most cases) some, possibly substantial, regard for them will be needed to achieve proper provision. The extent of such is likely to be less in ample resources cases and especially so where there are such resources accumulated during the marriage. G. PROPER PROVISION 47. I will make an Order pursuant to section 10(1)(f) of the Family Law Act, 1995 and sections 11 and 11A of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 (as amended) granting joint custody of the children to the parties with child arrangements to be agreed between them and liberty to apply in default of agreement. 48. Having regard to all of the foregoing, I have determined that the following constitutes proper financial provision (having regard to the accommodation and income requirements of the parties and the children now and into the future) in the context of this case: a. That the family home and adjacent parcel (currently owned by A Ltd) be sold and the Applicant receive the entirety of the net proceeds (being net of outstanding mortgage, legal and auctioneering costs of sale, revenue liabilities (including those of A Ltd in respect of the sale of the portion owned by it) and any other encumbrances). The end of the current school year would appear to be an appropriate time for such sale, but I will hear from the parties in this regard; b. The Respondent to be responsible for compensating A Ltd for the adjacent parcel mentioned above; c. Pending sale, the Respondent to continue to pay the mortgage and utilities on the family home; d. The Applicant have the option to sell her shares in A Ltd (15%) to the company based upon the current agreed valuation of the company or, in the alternative and at her option, to retain the said 15% shareholding (without active involvement in the day to day operation of the business) in which instance she is to be entitled to 15% of a net proceeds of sale of [REDACTED] (net only of legal and auctioneering costs of sale and revenue liabilities arising from the sale) in the event of a future sale thereof or, if not sold prior to the Respondent attaining the age of 65, 15% of the net market value (calculated as set out above) of the said property as of the date of the Respondent’s 65th birthday. The valuer to be agreed between the parties or by the nominee of the then President of the Law Society of Ireland in default of agreement of the parties, such sum to be paid within six months of the Respondent attaining the age of 65 years. This option to be exercised within six months of the date of this judgment and, if a current sale of shares is opted for, the sum due and owing to be paid within a further six months of the date of the exercise of the said option. If the second scenario arises, the Applicant will transfer her 15% shareholding in A Ltd to the Respondent upon receipt of such sum of money; e. The Applicant to retain property 1 with the Respondent to continue to reside there pending the sale of the family home. The Applicant to be responsible for the discharge of all encumbrances relating to the said property; f. The Applicant to continue to be employed by A Ltd on the same basis as currently and that this would continue until the family home is sold at which time the Applicant’s employment would be terminated with a termination payment of €36,000; g. No Order for maintenance as between the parties; h. Maintenance for the three dependent children of €2,000 per month divided equally between them with the Respondent additionally discharging the costs of non- routine medical expenses (where not covered by health insurance), dental expenses, optical expenses, school and college fees, books, uniforms, sporting and extra-curricular activities (subject to advance agreement in respect of extra- curricular expenses only) and health insurance for the children. It is envisaged that child maintenance may require review in the context of the children or any of them attending third level education. Expenses to be discharged within 14 days of vouching; i. A lump sum payment to be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant of €100,000 such sum to be paid within 6 months of the date of this judgment; j. The car currently used by the Applicant to be transferred to her with the Respondent to be responsible for any financial consequences arising vis a vis A Ltd.; k. The Applicant to retain the horses referenced in the D v. D schedule; l. The Applicant to retain her jewellery; m. The Applicant to be entitled to retain all balances in bank accounts held in her sole name; n. The contents of the family home to be divided as between the parties with liberty to apply in default of agreement; o. The Respondent to keep in place the current policy of life assurance and assign it for the benefit of the Applicant; p. A pension adjustment order to the Applicant to the Respondent’s [REDACTED] pension, valued at €266,297; q. The Applicant to retain the other assets as set out in her Affidavit of Means; r. An Order and cross Order pursuant to section 14 and section 15A (10) of the 1995 Act; s. The Applicant to retain the benefit of the €36,900 which she received by way of interim order of the 28th March 2025 (requested for payment of legal fees) and ordered subject to an acknowledgement that the sum might be taken into account by the Court when addressing the issue of proper provision at hearing; t. Save as provided for above, the Respondent to retain all of the assets in his Affidavit of Means and the proceeds of any joint bank accounts. 49. I conclude that these orders provide for proper provision on the following basis: The family home is a large property with extensive ancillary features. There is no doubt, having regard to the Affidavits of Means of the parties, that it is an expensive property to maintain and there was evidence of third-party staff support over the years. Many of the attractive facilities it offers are no longer required by the family. It is subject to a mortgage, albeit relatively modest having regard to the overall asset profile. The sale of it and the payment of the proceeds of sale to the Applicant will enable the purchase of a comfortable home, fulfilling all of the accommodation needs of the Applicant and the children now and in the future on an unencumbered basis with the likelihood of some funds remaining. The Applicant will have a secure income from the rental of her property and, during the children’s dependency, from child maintenance and many child expenses being discharged by the Respondent. She will obviously be in a position to supplement this from occupational earnings. She has received an interim lump sum, apparently in respect of legal fees. An additional lump sum payable at this juncture further addresses current liabilities. The arrangement proposed in relation to her company shareholding will allow for a current or deferred investment to further supplement income, it being for the Applicant to decide whether she wishes to make such investment at this point or closer to retirement. She will have a pension pot in excess of that of the Respondent as of this point. 50. The Respondent will continue to live in the Applicant’s investment property until the family home is sold (she retains her current income from A Ltd. during this time) and thereafter he has choices - he has his own investment property together with rental from units located on the business premises, he may rent elsewhere in the short term (he acknowledged that a level of income increase would be feasible, particularly when the business was no longer paying an income to the Applicant) or he can consider purchasing a property, noting that he has the benefit of two directors’ loans totalling approximately €275,000. He will have the ongoing benefit of the business and the associated lands and premises and his income from them. He will retain the [REDACTED] pension valued at €162,504 and I accept that he may have greater opportunity than the Applicant to supplement this. Of course, he will also have the security of the real and corporate assets. Having regard to the particular circumstances of this case, I find that there will be consequent proper provision for both parties and their children. 51. I will list this matter for mention at a date convenient to Counsel to address any other or consequential issues arising.