An Irish businessman whose group of companies is valued at £8 million obtained a divorce decree in the High Court yesterday and was told to pay his wife £1.5 million plus £4,500 per month. She is also to get the family home, an apartment in Tenerife and other properties.
The husband left the family home in 1988 after his wife discovered he was having an affair. He went to live with the woman in question, but returned to the family home in 1991 and remained there for some years. He is now living with another woman.
Both spouses accepted their relationship had irretrievably broken down. The wife sought a decree of judicial separation and opposed the divorce application. The case centred on whether the couple had lived apart although living in the same home.
Granting the divorce decree on the application heard in camera, Mr Justice McCracken said he had to decide whether the couple had lived apart from one another for a period amounting to four years as stated in Section 5 (1) of the 1996 Family Law (Divorce) Act.
Having considered the mental and intellectual attitudes of the couple, the judge said he was satisfied that, although they had resided under the same roof from 1991, the husband never considered himself to be living with his wife. In the last four years the wife, who had a relationship with another man in 1995, did not consider herself to be living with the husband.
"Marriage is not primarily concerned with where the spouses live or whether they lived under the same roof," the judge said. Clearly, there must be something more than mere physical separation, and the mental or intellectual attitude of the parties was also of considerable relevance. Both elements had to be considered in conjunction with each other.
Outlining the facts, the judge said the wife discovered in 1988 her husband was having an affair. She confronted him and he left the family home and continued the affair.
In 1991 the husband ended the relationship and returned to live in the family home. The wife said she was glad to have him back because she had never really accepted the marriage had ended. However, the husband maintained his primary motive for returning was to develop a better relationship with his children.
The couple slept in separate bedrooms, both at home and when on holidays with their children.
The wife owns 15 per cent of the shares in her husband's holding company, which was valued at £1.2 million by Mr Justice McCracken.
The judge said it was accepted the wife should have the family home and full ownership of an apartment in Tenerife. The husband should have the second home and the apartment in which he was now living. The wife was also to have a shop, a house adjoining it and another house in Dublin.
The husband had assets of £2 million and an income of £120,000 a year. He had invested in properties. The judge assessed "periodic" payments to the wife at £4,500 a month and said the husband should also pay his wife a further lump sum of £300,000.