S and S
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Master Sweeney |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] NIMaster 13 |
| Court | High Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 08 November 2018 |
1
Neutral citation No: [2018] NIMaster 13
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: 2018NIMaster13
Delivered: 8/11/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
________
FAMILY DIVISION
________
BETWEEN:
S
Petitioner;
and
S
Respondent
(Valuation Hearing)
________
MASTER SWEENEY
[1] The parties are invited to consider this judgment and unless they inform the
Matrimonial Office in writing within two weeks of any reason why the judgment
should not be published on the Court Service’ website, or anonymised further before
publication, then the judgment will be published in its present form.
[2] This case came before me for a Valuation Hearing on Wednesday 24 October
2018, continued on 25 October 2018 and was adjourned for judgment today.
[3] For the sake of convenience I refer to the Petitioner as “the Husband “and the
Respondent as “the Wife”.
[4] The Valuation Hearing relates to an Individual Financial Advice practice set
up by the Husband in July 2012 which I hereafter refer to as “the company”.
Preamble
[5] Given the disappointing history of disagreement and delay I asked counsel
for both parties whether there was any merit in allocating court time for an FDR
hearing or whether a hearing is inevitable. I have been told a hearing is inevitable
and therefore I shall fix this case for hearing without it having the benefit of a
2
Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing enjoyed by so many parties who come before
this court.
[6] The success of a Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing very much depends on
the parties and their legal advisors committing to trying to agree a fair resolution. If
they are determined not to agree, they will usually not agree. When the contrary
applies, the process has an increased chance of achieving an agreed fair resolution.
[7] It is particularly disappointing that the background facts, in many respects
straightforward, do not obviously afford justification for the escalating costs which
can have done nothing to reduce the acrimony in this case.
The Facts
[8] When the case first came before me I noted that it was a case where the
Husband was then aged just 36 years and the Wife aged just 34 years. The parties
had married on 18 August 2006 and disagreed about whether they separated in
February 2012 or October 2012. Either way, they were together in marriage for
around 6 years, a reasonably short period of time and they had been separated for
several years. The Husband secured a decree nisi of divorce on 27 April 2015 on the
grounds that the parties had lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the Wife consented to a
decree being granted.
[9] The parties have one child, their daughter, who was then aged 6 years and
they shared her care. The Wife gave birth to another child from her relationship with
her partner, who was a Bank Manager. The Decree Absolute has issued. Both parties
had moved on with their lives.
[10] At the time, I further noted that the Husband was a company
Director/Financial Advisor and the Wife was a Systemic Practitioner. The assets
appeared to comprise:
• the very modest proceeds of the former matrimonial home (before any
deductions to account for asserted loans given by each of the parties’ parents)
• The parties’ modest interest in another property held with another couple.
• The parties’ very modest pensions.
• The Husband’s business which provided his income.
• The Wife’s business which contributed to her income.
• The parties’ savings.
To continue reading
Request your trial