A recent decision of Judge Jackson in a Circuit Court Appeal of K.B. v. RB. highlighted the importance of being able to prove assertions that are made during the course of a case.
Appeals from Circuit Court cases are very often helpful for practitioners because they indicate the Court’s view in relation to cases involving relatively modest assets and means.
In this case, it was accepted that both parties had made equal contributions during the course of the marriage. There were four children, one of whom had certain additional needs.
The primary consideration for the Court was the housing needs of both parties in circumstances where there was a family home with relatively modest equity of €360,000.
The husband said that he needed at least €160,000, notwithstanding the fact that the Court heard that the husband had previously purchased and owned a house before the parties married and the sale proceeds from that house had gone into the purchase of a subsequent property and the court divided the proceeds as to two-thirds in favour of the wife and one-third in favour of the husband.
This highlights the dilemma often faced by a Court i.e., where one party may have brought assets into the marriage (which, in normal circumstances, would be taken into account), but where there simply are not enough assets for that recognition to be observed.
In this case, the Court made the two-thirds/one-third decision primarily based on the fact that the wife was the primary caregiver and decided that the housing needs of her and the children were of primary importance.
In the case, the husband made a number of claims:
a) That he had cashed a pension amounting to €25,000 and put this into the family pot.
b) That he had a certain disability which hindered his ability to work.
c) That some of the house moves were a result of the wife’s unhappiness in living in particular houses.
The husband was unable to prove any of these assertions, and it appears that this impacted his credibility. It is not clear if this influenced the Court’s ultimate decision, but it certainly did not help the husband’s claim in relation to a share of the wife’s pension. The Court made no Order in relation to Pension Adjustment Orders, other than providing the husband with spousal benefits while the children were still dependent.
In another interesting aspect of the case, a report was commissioned to deal with the issue of access. The husband argued that a Section 47 report (which has a wider scope than a Section 32 report under the 2015 Act) was necessary. However, the Court directed a Section 32(b) report instead, as the Judge took the view that there appeared to be no dissent between the parties in relation to with whom the children should reside. The only issue was the timetabling of access, and as such, the Court felt that a Section 32(b) report was sufficient.
This case highlights the importance more than anything else that if assertions are being made by either party, they must be backed up by proof at the hearing.
For further information or advice on any family law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Brendan Dillon, Emma Dillon, Alice Downey, or Simone Murray on 01 296 0666.
