![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> F.B. v D.B. (Approved) (Rev1) [2022] IEHC 744 (31 May 2022) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2022/2022_IEHC_744.html Cite as: [2022] IEHC 744 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
THE HIGH COURT
FAMILY LAW
[2022] IEHC 744
RECORD NO. [2022/10M]
IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL SEPARATION AND FAMILY
LAW REFORM ACT 1989 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE
FAMILY
LAW ACT 1995
BETWEEN/
F.B.
APPLICANT
AND
D.B.
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT OF Mr. Justice Jordan delivered
on the 31st
day
of May 2022.
1. This is an application for
a
decree
of judicial separation and ancillary relief pursuant to the Judicial Separation and
Family
Law Reform Act 1989 and the
Family
Law Act 1995.
2. The applicant and the respondent were
married in 1973. They have three
children
- two girls and a boy - all of
whom
are adults and making their
way
independently in life.
3. Both the applicant and the respondent are 74 years of age.
4. The family
business involves a
company
which
was
incorporated in 1977. It has grown steadily since then
with
some setbacks - most recently
during
and after the
financial
crisis
of 2008/2009. In recent years, the
company
has grown significantly and is
doing
well.
The
Court
is satisfied that the
current
strong position and success of the business is
due
largely to the effort and industry of the adult son of the parties
who
became involved in the business some years ago on his return
from
overseas. He has modernised and grown the
company
in a niche market
where
it is
well
regarded and
competent.
It must also be acknowledged that the respondent has been a part of this process. He has a vast experience and an intimate knowledge of the business.
5. The family
home of the parties is held in the joint names of the parties and is
free
of encumbrances. It is an attractive and spacious house in a sought-after location.
6. The proceedings commenced
in August of 2018. The
defence
and
counterclaim
were
delivered
in January 2019.
7. There were
issues between the parties
concerning
financial
disclosure
and vouching but the
case
was
ultimately listed
for
hearing in the
Circuit
Court
on 05 October 2021. The Judge allowed time outside the
Court
to
facilitate
the parties engaging in
without
prejudice settlement negotiations and to allow the applicant's legal representatives to speak
with
certain
witnesses
who
had been subpoenaed - and to ascertain the
documentation
which
they had brought
with
them.
8. The case
did
not settle but the respondent
did
make an open offer to the
Court,
the terms of
which
were
included in a letter
dated
05 October 2021
which
was
sent by the respondent's solicitors to the applicant's solicitors.
9. A successful application was
made on 06 October 2021 by the applicant to adjourn the matter -
with
a view to bringing motions
for
non-party
discovery
against
certain
third parties. The
contents
of the open letter
were
forcefully
recommended to the
Circuit
Court
on behalf of the respondent. The applicant's position
was
that until proper
disclosure
was
made, she
could
not respond to the open offer.
10. On 14 January 2022 an order was
made on
consent
in the
Circuit
Court
transferring the
case
[and the related
divorce
proceedings] to the High
Court.
The
Court
order refers to the transfer being made "on the basis of
Circuit
Court
Costs".
11. Although motions for
discovery
did
issue, they
were
not proceeded
with.
The applicant pressed
for
and
did
receive additional information and vouching
documentation
prior to the
commencement
of the hearing in the High
Court
which
satisfied her legal team in respect of
discovery
- to the extent that the motions
were
not pursued.
12. The terms of the open offer were
confirmed
in a letter
from
the respondent's solicitors
dated
21
December
2021. By letter of 07
February
2022 the open offer
with
some minor
changes
was
reiterated.
13. The applicant replied to the open offer by letter dated
20 April 2022.
14. On Tuesday 03 May 2022 during
the hearing two
further
open letters
concerning
settlement passed between the parties.
15. For
completeness
the "open offer
correspondence"
is
contained
in the
first
schedule attached to this judgment. The open offer
correspondence
comprises
of a letter
dated
05 October 2021
from
the respondent's solicitors to the applicant's solicitors, a letter
dated
21
December
2021
from
the respondent's solicitors to the applicant's solicitors, a letter
dated
07
February
2022
from
the respondent's solicitors to the applicant's solicitors, a letter
dated
20 April 2022
from
the applicant's solicitors to the respondent's solicitors, a letter
dated
22 April 2022
from
the respondent's solicitors to the applicant's solicitors, a letter
dated
03 May 2022
from
the applicant's solicitors to the respondent's solicitors and a letter
dated
03 May 2022
from
the respondent's solicitors to the applicant's solicitors.
16. The case
was
listed
for
hearing (scheduled
for
four
days)
on Tuesday 26 April 2022. Much of that
day
was
occupied by
without
prejudice settlement negotiations outside
Court.
17. The case
did
not settle and the evidence
commenced
on
Wednesday
27 April 2022 and
continued
on Thursday 28th and
Friday
29 April 2022. The hearing resumed on Tuesday 03 May 2022 and
concluded
with
oral submissions on behalf of both sides on the afternoon of
Wednesday
04 May 2022.
18. It is extremely difficult
to understand how or
why
this
case
has occupied such hearing time in the High
Court
in
circumstances
where
the respondent's approach has since 05 October 2021 essentially been that there should be a sale of all of the main assets and a
division
of the proceeds 50/50 between both parties.
19. It may be unreasonable not to allow some time to pass after 05 October 2021 for
pursuit of
discovery
and
further
disclosure
- and
for
informed
consideration
of the open offer. The applicant might also argue that there
were
still some loose ends in relation to the
company
affairs and
financial
matters
current
at and just prior to the time of hearing. The
Court
is however satisfied that any such issues
were
not insurmountable or
critical
matters in the overall
context.
20. The company
is a
family
business now largely in the hands of the second generation [the son] in terms of the
day-to-day
business. The respondent remains involved - and
with
this package
comes
some
degree
of
confusion
concerning
expenses, entitlements and
drawings.
However, there is no persuasive evidence of any male
fides
or aggrandisement by the respondent at the expense of the
company.
Rather a picture emerges of the respondent
working
in recent years at his own pace as an older and valuable part of the team but
without
having a proper salary structure in place.
21. A reasonable period of grace to allow engagement in a meaningful and constructive
way
concerning
the open offer had
clearly
passed before the hearing
date
of the 26 April 2022.
22. The late response to the open offer dated
20 April 2022 - and the reply to that of 22 April
from
the respondent's solicitors - suggested that there
was
little in reality between the parties although they
did
not agree on everything. The timing of the sale of the
family
home
was
however particularly
contentious.
23. As the case
did
not resolve, the hearing proceeded.
24. There was
a hotly
contested
issue
concerning
the yacht
which
the respondent
wishes
to hold onto
without
any monetary adjustment in
favour
of the applicant - and likewise in respect of his prestige
car.
The applicant values the yacht at €100,000.00 and the
car
at €70,000.00. The respondent values the yacht at €55,000.00 [or approximately €60,000.00 in his most recent affidavit of means] and the
car
at €35,000.00. There
was
some evidence in relation to the purchase prices given by the parties but the evidence
concerning
the
current
value of the yacht and the prestige
car
was
unsatisfactory. The main evidence in relation to the yacht valuations on both sides
was
in
written
form.
The "
Countertop"
valuation of the yacht is an unimpressive
document
whereas
the valuation
dated
08 April 2022 is at least a signed valuation by a person apparently knowledgeable in the area and
familiar
with
the yacht. The
Court
was
provided
with
"
Done
Deal"
comparisons
- or another "
Countertop"
valuation - in relation to the prestige
car.
25. Having regard to the evidence heard, the Court
considers
the applicant's valuations of the yacht and the
car
to be excessive. The respondent's evidence
concerning
the valuation of both is more persuasive, although the
Court
considers
the respondent's valuations a bit light. The
Court
will
place a value of €70,000.00 on the yacht and a value of €50,000.00 on the
car.
The
combined
value of both on this basis is €120,000.00. If the applicant
was
entitled to 50% of their value, that
would
give her €60,000.00 in respect of those assets.
26. Thus, it must be said that a dispute
concerning
the entitlement to a 50/50 split of the value of the yacht and the prestige
car
is petty in the overall scheme of things - and having regard to the evidence heard. It
did
not,
without
more, justify a
four/five-day
hearing in the High
Court.
27. In so far
as the prestige
car
is
concerned,
the
Court
does
accept that the respondent
does
use it
for
company
travel albeit
with
significant personal use also.
28. It is the position that the applicant received an inheritance from
her brother on or about the 29th of October 2021 of €36,330.72 [net after payment of Inheritance Tax]. It
was
lodged to a bank account in her name on 11 November 2021. This inheritance
was
not
disclosed
by her until shortly prior to the hearing in the High
Court.
29. On behalf of the respondent, it was
pointed out that the yacht
was
purchased
with
the assistance of an inheritance
which
the respondent had received
from
his brother and
which
allowed him to put €50,000.00 towards the acquisition
costs.
The evidence
was
that the respondent has had boats since he
was
17 and had traded up
when
acquiring this yacht. He said he
did
not smoke or
drink
and his yacht/sailing is and has been his hobby throughout his life. He
did
not regard the yacht as a luxury item.
30. It was
put to the applicant in evidence that it
would
seem
fair
that the respondent
would
keep the yacht and she
would
keep her inheritance. The answer by her to that question in
cross-examination
was
that that
would
be okay.
31. Some time was
taken up
with
monies expended by the respondent on a tender or
dingy
and on berthing
fees
which
it
was
alleged should not have been paid
for
in the
way
they
were
- and
which
expenses had
depleted
the matrimonial
funds.
Again, these
were
inconsequential issues in the overall
context
and a sensible approach
would
have let them
drop.
The
Court
is not prepared to order any add-backs by the respondent notwithstanding the applicant's
contention
that a sum of €7,500.00 and a sum of €3,000.00 ought to be paid back by the respondent to the bank accounts.
32. Time was
spent
concerning
certain
"expenses" paid on behalf of the respondent by the
company
and the treatment of these payments in the
company
accounts. Of note in this regard is the
fact
that in the open offer
dated
the 5th of October, 2022 the respondent proposed as a term of the settlement of the proceedings the
following:
-
"5. It is acknowledged by the applicant that ....... the company
is tax
compliant.
However, it is hereby agreed that the respondent shall indemnify the applicant against any revenue
claim
that may arise relating to the
company."
The applicant now seeks provision in the Court
order
for
such an indemnity. The
Court
is not persuaded that it ought to include such a broad provision in the
Court
order.
33. The company
has its own accountants. They are no
doubt
alert to their obligations
concerning
the respondent's receipts, benefits or expenses received by him
from
the
company
and accounting properly
for
same in the
company
accounts and in so
far
as any revenue liability is
concerned.
Given the nature of the
family
business the
Court
is not
convinced
that any indemnity ought to be provided
for
in the
Court
order.
34. Much time was
spent in the hearing
with
evidence
concerning
the value of the
company
and
family
business. In this regard, Mr. P. gave evidence on behalf of the applicant
concerning
the valuation and Mr. M. gave evidence on behalf of the respondent.
35. Ms. W.
also gave evidence on behalf of the applicant. She prepared a
financial
report
for
the applicant in relation to the assets and liabilities
detailed
in the
D
v
D
schedule.
36. On the applicant's side, the company
is valued at €4,152,000.00 - or net (after selling
costs
and
capital
gains tax) €2,945,000.00. On the respondent's side, the
company
is valued at €1,800,000.00 or €1,462,400.00 after provision
for
capital
gains tax.
37. Given the disparity
in valuations it is very
clear
that Mr. P. and Mr. M. have very
different
views as to
what
the
company
is
worth.
Ultimately,
what
it is
worth
will
be
determined
on sale. The evidence of Mr. P. and Mr. M. highlighted the
fact
that valuing the
company
is very
far
from
an exact science and the ultimate test of the value of the
company
is the price
which
it achieves on sale.
38. The Court
has
considered
the evidence and the reports of Mr. P. and Mr. M.
concerning
the value of the
company.
It remains to be seen
what
sale price the
company
will
achieve.
39. The Court
does
however
consider
the approach to valuation of Mr. P. (5-8 times
future
maintainable profits or "
FMP")
to be overly optimistic (and leaving to one side
for
the moment the uncertainty
which
the range of 5-8 itself illustrates). Taking the apparent best
case
scenario of €519K X 8 = €4,152,000.00 as representing the value of the
company
as the applicant has
done
in the
D
v
D
schedule appears unrealistic. The
Court
considers
that this approach to the valuation of this
family
company
does
not have sufficient regard
for
the
fact
that the son of the applicant and respondent is in effect running the
company,
has been largely responsible
for
its expansion and success over recent years and is
clearly
a "key man" in the business.
Furthermore,
it is
clear
from
the evidence that there is nothing to prevent him setting up on his own in
competition
to the
family
company
and bringing some or all the employees and
customers
and suppliers
with
him - apart perhaps
from
any loyalty he
feels
to his parents and to the
company.
40. Mr. P. fairly
conceded
in his evidence that if the son and the
current
employees
walked
out in the morning there
would
not be a business.
41. The Court
has had regard to the evidence given by Mr. M. and his report
concerning
the value of the
company.
In arriving at his valuation of the
company,
he has used the
future
maintainable profits approach, but he has used a multiple of 4x based on the size of the
company,
historical performance of the
company,
the managements operation of the
company
and his professional judgment and knowledge of the
current
market. His multiple
was
applied to a
weighted
average
future
maintainable profit of €324,967.00
which
he
calculated
by looking at the
company's
three most recently
filed
financial
statements, the
final
draft
financial
statements
for
the year ended 31st of
December,
2020. In arriving at the
weighted
average, he made the
following
adjustments: -
(1) A market adjustment of €25,000.00 to the son's salary to bring it in line with
industry salaries
for
an equivalent managing
director.
(2) A pension adjustment to reflect pension contributions
for
the son to bring them in line
with
industry salaries
for
an equivalent managing
director.
(3) A rent adjustment of €35,000.00 to reflect the estimated market rate should the company
be required to pay rent (if it is occupying the property belonging to the respondent).
(4) An exceptionally large depreciation
charge
in 2017.
42. Mr. M's valuation of the company
is between €1.8m and €1.83m based on the
future
maintainable profits approach.
43. For
completeness,
Mr. M. also
considered
possible outcomes using the liquidation approach and arrived at a value between €1.32m and €1.53m.
44. In Mr. M's opinion, the valuation of the equity of the company
on an ongoing
concern
basis is €1.81m.
45. The Court
considers
the approach of Mr. M. to be more realistic than that of Mr. P. It is necessary to observe also that an overly optimistic valuation of this
family
company
may
well
be inimical to the interests of the applicant and of the respondent.
46. The Court
did
consider
granting a
decree
of judicial separation and
directing
a sale of the
company
and of the
warehouse
from
which
it operates - and adjourning the making of
further
orders
concerning
provision until the sale is
complete.
Such an approach
would
have the attraction of knowing precisely the value of the
company
before making orders
concerning
the
financial
issues in
dispute
between the parties. The
Court's
jurisdiction to
do
so
was
questioned by the respondent. The
Court
is not persuaded that it
does
not have jurisdiction to proceed in that manner in an appropriate
case.
However, the
Court
is persuaded that it
would
be inappropriate to adopt this approach in this
case
not least because of:-
a. The desire
for
finality
and expedition.
b. The age of the parties.
c.
style='
font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"'> The
fact
that these proceedings
commenced
in 2018.
d.
style='
font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"'> The
fact
that the
Court
believes that the placing of the
company
on the market
for
sale pursuant to the
Court
order
which
the
Court
intends to make
will
protect the interests of the parties just as
well
as any other approach
would.
e. The fact
that the
Court
has heard the evidence in the
case
to
conclusion
and ought therefore
decide
the
case
and make the appropriate orders in the interests of justice.
47. It is appropriate that the Court
set out Section 16 of the
Family
Law Act, 1995 and
detail
its
findings
in respect of the matters recited in Section 16(2).
48. Section 16(1) of provides that: -
"In deciding
whether
to make an order under section 7, 8, 9, 10 (1) (a), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15A, 18 or 25 and in
determining
the provisions of such an order, the
court
shall endeavour to ensure that such provision exists or
will
be made
for
each spouse
concerned
and
for
any
dependent
member of the
family
concerned
as is proper having regard to all the
circumstances
of the
case."
49. Section 16(2) goes on to provide that: -
"Without
prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), in
deciding
whether
to make such an order as aforesaid and in
determining
the provisions of such an order, the
court
shall, in particular, have regard to the
following
matters—"
"(a) the income, earning capacity,
property and other
financial
resources
which
each of the spouses
concerned
has or is likely to have in the
foreseeable
future."
The applicant and the respondent are 74 years of age and the "matrimonial assets" are as set out in the D
v
D
schedule. They are both in receipt of state pensions and the respondent has a private pension also. The respondent
does
have some earning
capacity
in that he is still
working
at times
for
the
family
business on the basis already mentioned in this judgment. He is no
doubt
an asset to it because of his knowledge of the business, its
customers
and suppliers. However, he is at this stage of his life entitled to be retired and to enjoy the
fruits
of his labour. It
would
be
wrong
to attach any real
weight
to
whatever
income or earning
capacity
he has by reason of his involvement in the
family
business
which
will
in any event be placed on the market
for
sale.
Whether
or not he has any involvement
with
the
company
and business after the sale
concludes
is uncertain.
The applicant does
not have any earning
capacity
at this stage of her life and
depends
upon her pension and the accumulated
financial
resources
which
she is entitled to a share of. She too is entitled to enjoy the
fruits
of her lifetime of hard
work
in retirement.
"(b) the financial
needs, obligations and responsibilities
which
each of the spouses has or is likely to have in the
foreseeable
future
(
whether
in the
case
of the remarriage of the spouse or otherwise)."
Both the applicant and the respondent need enough money to secure suitable and comfortable
accommodation and to provide
for
their
daily
needs as they grow older as senior
citizens.
"(c)
the standard of living enjoyed by the
family
concerned
before the proceedings
were
instituted or before the spouses separated, as the
case
may be."
The applicant and the respondent appear to have enjoyed a comfortable
but not extravagant lifestyle. It is the position that the respondent appears to have enjoyed
frequent
holidays in recent years (
where
the yacht is moored) and time in another location in Ireland
where
he has an acquaintance. His lifestyle
was
more lavish than that of the applicant and that
does
appear to be
due
in part at least to the
fact
that his
financial
resources
were
better than the applicants.
"(d)
the age of each of the spouses and the length of time
during
which
the spouses lived together."
As already stated, the applicant and the respondent were
married in 1973 and they are both 74 years of age. They both reside together in the
family
home but unhappy
differences
have existed since 2018, and indeed prior to then. Their lives have been separate
for
several years. However, theirs
was
a marriage of long
duration.
"(e) any physical or mental disability
of either of the spouses."
Both the applicant and the respondent have not insignificant health issues although they do
both appear
well
at present. That said, their respective health
concerns
and need
for
care
in the
future
- and the resources to pay
for
same - are pertinent. The health
concerns
are also another reason
for
expedition and
finality.
"(f)
the
contributions
which
each of the spouses has made or is likely in the
foreseeable
future
to make to the
welfare
of the
family,
including any
contribution
made by each of them to the income, earning
capacity,
property and
financial
resources of the other spouse and any
contribution
made by either of them by looking after the home or
caring
for
the
family."
This was
a successful marriage in
which
there is an offer by the respondent to approach the
division
of assets on a 50/50 basis in essence. Both parties are 74. It is not therefore necessary to
dwell
on the above
consideration.
"(g) the effect on the earning capacity
of each of the spouses of the marital responsibilities assumed by each
during
the period
when
they lived together and, in particular, the
degree
to
which
the
future
earning
capacity
of a spouse is impaired by reason of that spouse having relinquished or
foregone
the opportunity of remunerative activity in order to look after the home or
care
for
the
family."
Likewise, insofar as this consideration
is
concerned.
"(h) any income or benefits to which
either of the spouses is entitled by or under statute."
Both spouses are in receipt of the Old Age Pension.
"(i) the conduct
of each of the spouses, if that
conduct
is such that in the opinion of the
court
it
would
in all the
circumstances
of the
case
be unjust to
disregard
it."
No case
has been made under this heading and it need not be
dwelt
on.
"(j) the accommodation needs of either of the spouses."
The accommodation needs of both spouses does
require
consideration.
The status quo is to
continue
pending a sale of the
dwelling
house. A sale of the
dwelling
house and a
division
of the proceeds of sale
will
entitle both the applicant and the respondent to secure suitable and appropriate accommodation - albeit smaller than the
current
family
home and perhaps in a slightly less expensive area.
"(k) the value to each of the spouses of any benefit (for
example, a benefit under a pension scheme)
which
by reason of the
decree
of judicial separation
concerned
that spouse
will
forfeit
the opportunity or possibility of acquiring."
The Court
will
divide
the private pension of the respondent 50/50 between the applicant and the respondent. That is
fair
in
circumstances
where
the respondent has no private pension.
"(l) the rights of any person other than the spouses but including a person to whom
either spouse is remarried."
This does
not arise.
50. The parties did
make
written
submissions
concerning
the appropriate
Court
orders and they have indicated areas of agreement and
disagreement
-
with
submissions
concerning
the areas of
disagreement.
The
Court
has
considered
all the submissions made. The
Court
desires
to structure the
Court
order in a
way
which
will
help achieve
fairness,
finality
and
clarity
- and hopefully lessen reasons
for
conflict
between both sides going
forward.
The parties at their stage in life
deserve
an end to litigation - if at all possible.
51. A particularly contentious
issue has been the applicant's insistence that the
company
be sold [the sale
documents
for
completion
of the sale be executed] before the
family
home is placed on the market
for
sale. The open offer
correspondence
details
the position of each party in this regard. The
Court
finds
that this insistence is probably because the applicant has hopes of remaining in the
family
home and
would
hope to buy the respondent out
with
her share of the proceeds of the sale of the business. This is a somewhat understandable position. However, it is also an unreasonable position to adopt having regard to the age and needs of both parties, the
connection
which
they both have to the
family
home and it's size. The applicant
does
not need a house as large as the
family
home and
downsizing
is a sensible approach in any event - even if there is a sentimental attachment.
52. The respondent has adopted a reasonable approach in his open letter of the 5th of October 2021 and subsequently - but the applicant has not been reasonable in her response.
53. In light of the evidence, the Court
considers
it appropriate to make the
following
orders : -
1. A Decree
of Judicial Separation pursuant to section 2(1)(
f)
of the Judicial Separation and
Family
Law Reform Act 1989.
2. An order pursuant to section 15 of the Family
Law Act 1995
directing
the applicant and respondent to jointly sell their respective shareholdings in the "
Company"
as expeditiously as possible in the most tax efficient manner and
with
the
combined
net proceeds of sale
from
the sale of both shareholdings to be
divided
equally between them.
3. The sale of the Company
is to proceed in the
following
manner -
3.1. [Redacted financial
services
firm]
be appointed to advise the parties in respect of the sale of the
Company
and to prepare the
Company
for
sale, including the production of an Information Memorandum - such Memorandum to be
completed
by the 30th of June, 2022.
3.2. Once a price range has been ascertained and agreed by the applicant and the respondent, D.B.
is to be entitled to make an offer
for
the purchase of the
company.
3.3. The applicant's and the respondent's solicitors shall be jointly instructed in respect of the sale of the Company.
Alternatively, in
default
of agreement on this an independent solicitor is to be agreed and appointed
for
the sale of the
company.
3.4. [redacted financial
advisory
firm]
shall
continue
to advise and assist the
Company
in respect of the preparation of any accounts to
facilitate
the sale of the
Company.
4. (a) An Order pursuant to section 10(1)(a)(ii) of the Family
Law Act 1995
directing
the sale of the ("
Family
Home")
with
the net proceeds of sale to be
divided
equally between the parties. There shall be joint
carriage
of sale as between the nominated solicitors
for
the parties.
(b) The said property to be placed on the market for
sale and put up
for
sale through [redacted auctioneers] on the 1st of September 2022. The advices of the auctioneer as to the mode of sale and the reserve are to be accepted by the parties. Any offer made
for
the house
which
the auctioneer
considers
a good offer shall be the subject of a recommendation of the auctioneer. The parties
will
accept the advice and recommendation of the auctioneer.
(c)
Both the applicant and the respondent are to be entitled to reside in the
family
home pending the
closing
of the sale of the
family
home.
5. A declaration
pursuant to section 10(1)(b) of the 1995 Act that the joint tenancy between the parties in the
family
home is severed effective upon the making of this Order.
6. An order that the contents
of the
family
home be
divided
equally between the parties on a turn and turnabout basis.
7. An Order pursuant to section 15 of the Family
Law Act 1995
directing
the respondent to sell (the "
Commercial
Property")
with
the net proceeds of sale to be
divided
equally between the parties. The
Commercial
Property is to be marketed in
conjunction
with
the sale of the
Company
and in the event that the
Commercial
Property is not sold as part of the sale of the
Company,
the
Commercial
Property
will
be marketed
for
sale thereafter. There shall be joint
carriage
of sale of the
Commercial
Property as between the nominated solicitors
for
the parties.
8. An Order pursuant to section 15 of the Family
Law Act 1995
directing
the sale of the old
car
with
all reasonable expedition and
with
the net proceeds of sale to be
distributed
equally between the parties.
9. An Order pursuant to section 9(1)(a) of the Family
Law Act 1995
directing
that the balances of all bank accounts (other than €36,330.72 being the applicant's inheritance), investments to include the EIS investment and any share holdings (other than in the
Company)
as between the parties be
consolidated
and
distributed
equally between the parties. It is
declared
that the applicant shall retain her inheritance. The proceeds of the EIS are to be
distributed
when
the investment
can
be encashed or realised
without
penalty.
10. An Order pursuant to section 9(1)(a) of the Family
Law Act 1995
directing
the respondent to transfer, or arrange the transfer, prior to 1st of July 2022 to the applicant in as
cost
efficient a manner as possible 50% of the value of the pensions.
11. Save as otherwise provided for
herein an Order pursuant to section 36 of the
Family
Law Act 1995 that each of the parties are the sole legal and beneficial owner of all other assets identified in their individual Affidavits of Means sworn on 27th April, 2022 and 1st April, 2022 respectively - except that the respondent is
Declared
solely entitled to the yacht and his
car.
12. Mutual Orders pursuant to section 14 of the Family
Law Act 1995 extinguishing the share that either party
would
otherwise be entitled to in the estate of the other party as a legal right or on intestacy under the Succession Act 1965.
13. Mutual Orders pursuant to section 15A(10) of the Family
Law Act 1995
directing
that neither party shall, on the
death
of the other, be entitled to apply
for
an order under section 15A of the
Family
Law Act 1995.
14. Liberty to apply and/or re-enter.
54. The Court
will
hear
from
both parties in relation to the
costs of these proceedings.