S v S
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Master Sweeney |
| Judgment Date | 11 April 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] NIMaster 4 |
| Court | High Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 11 April 2019 |
Neutral Citation No: [2019] NIMaster 4
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: 2019NIMaster 4
Delivered: 11/04/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
FAMILY DIVISION
BETWEEN:
S
Petitioner
and
S
Respondent
(No.2)
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should not be published on the Court Service website, or anonymised further before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 involves an application for ancillary relief issued by the Petitioner,
whom I herein call “the Husband” for convenience. The case came before me for
Hearing on Wednesday 8th January 2019 and continued on 9th January 2019. It was
adjourned for HMRC to be asked to provide clarification in relation to documents
presented at the hearing. It has not proved possible to secure that information and
therefore the case was listed for judgment today.
[3] At the outset the case had every appearance of being straightforward. As will
appear from the facts recited below, the case presented as involving the relatively
short marriage of a reasonably young couple who had separate careers, had moved
on with their lives but who both contributed to the care of their child.
[4] There were few assets of value of the marriage but the Husband operated his
own Independent Financial Advice company from which he derived his income. A
valuation was sought of the company but against a background where the Husband
had previously been involved in an equal partnership with the Wife’s mother and
had bought out her interest. This occurred three years before the separation date and
was for an agreed lump sum of £120,000 paid at £1,000 monthly over a period of 10
years. The Husband continued to pay this debt from his income after the separation.
[5] Disappointingly, although the parties were able to resolve by agreement any
issues surrounding their divorce and the care of their daughter, a wholly different
approach was taken in relation to the resolution of the financial matters.
Notwithstanding best practice guidance, agreement was not achieved in relation to a
valuer of the Husband’s business which resulted in delayed resolution, increased
costs, heightened bitterness and understandable frustration. The court did sound a
cautionary note at a relatively early stage but it would have required both sides to
listen and sadly that did not happen. Therefore, a case which ought otherwise to
have been capable of resolution by agreement instead required a hearing on a
variety of issues.
[6] At the hearing, both parties relied on the sworn affidavits which they filed with
the court and they each gave evidence. In addition counsel appearing for the parties,
Ms. Kerr BL on behalf of the Husband and Ms. O’Grady QC on behalf of the
Respondent filed detailed position papers for the assistance of the court.
Facts:-
[7] As I have said, the parties’ marriage was relatively short. The parties married on
18th August 2006 and according to the Husband’s undefended petition, separated on
11th July 2012. Notwithstanding conflicting accounts, I find that to be the date of
separation. Therefore the parties have been apart for a longer period than they were
together in marriage which was a period of 5 years and 11 months.
[8] They were aged 33 years and 31 years respectively at separation. The Husband is
now aged 40 years and the wife aged 38 years.
[9] The parties have a daughter who was aged just 3 years at the time of the
separation. She resides with her mother but has such extensive contact with her
father that the parties virtually share her care. I was shown a Family Court Officer
report among the papers filed which describes a happy child who sees herself as
living in two homes and enjoying a close bond with both of her parents.
[10] I also note that as a result of an application by the Wife and assessment by
CMED, (the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Division) the Husband pays to the
Wife £475.11 monthly toward the Wife’s child maintenance expenses in respect of
the parties’ daughter.
[11] After their separation the parties each formed new relationships with other
partners as a result of which the wife has two young children born at separate times
To continue reading
Request your trial