A warring couple’s “high conflict” proceedings involving estimated legal costs of about €500,000 are “a cautionary tale” about the price of family law litigation, a High Court judge has said.
The €1.1 million value of the remaining assets of the marriage of less than five years puts the scale of the legal costs “in context”, Mr Justice John Jordan said.
He made the comments when upholding the man’s appeal against certain Circuit Court orders made in divorce proceedings.
Orders requiring the man to pay the woman a €150,100 lump sum for spousal maintenance, €173,500 to achieve pension equalisation and €61,500 towards her legal fees were described as “punitive” by Mr Justice Jordan.
It was a short marriage with few matrimonial assets generated during its existence, the judge said. Taking this into account, and that inheritances accounted for much of the husband’s assets, the woman should have about 25 per cent of the available assets, meaning a total lump sum of €275,000, plus payment of her health insurance, the judge ruled.
The man has valuable pensions, while the woman’s are of nominal value, but that must be viewed in the context of the marriage’s short duration, he said. The man has a reasonably good salary and, while the woman earns significantly less, her part-time earnings are reasonable and likely to increase, he said.
The Circuit Court failed to properly take into account the man will separately pay €1,100 monthly maintenance, plus some other costs, for their child and had put €56,000 in a trust fund for the child, the judge noted.
He set aside a safety order the Circuit Court granted to the woman against the man. He found she had not pressed that court for it and there was a lack of evidence of any violence, or threats of violence by the man. “Simply to set necessary lines of demarcation,” the judge said he would make orders restraining the man from entering the woman’s property.
The dispute between the man and woman has been before the District Court, Circuit Court and High Court, he said. The woman initiated judicial separation proceedings and there were other proceedings related to access and custody.
He was satisfied both sides contributed to the disagreements and the “high conflict” nature of the litigation. To their mutual credit, against a “difficult backdrop” and medical issues, their young child is doing well, the judge said.
A summary of legal costs indicated the woman’s costs were about €258,000, of which €44,000 was paid, while the man’s were €212,000, most of which have been paid. He estimated accountants’ fees at €20,000-€30,000.
Both sides must negotiate their own fee payments, the judge said. Hers are likely to be much less than the “aspirational” €258,000 referred to, he believed.
It seemed the woman would probably have qualified for legal aid but she decided not to apply, apparently in the belief the service would have been inferior to that of private lawyers, the judge said.
There was “no reason” to doubt the quality of the legal aid service and nothing to suggest there would have been any greater delays if she was represented by the Legal Aid Board, he said. Her decision not to seek legal aid was “somewhat irresponsible” when she clearly could not afford private representation and the total resources of the marriage “were not great”, he said.
Considering this factor, alongside other reasons, the judge set aside an order requiring the man to pay €61,000 towards her legal fees.
