Delivering judgment for the High Court, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson remarked that “court time and resources come at a cost — a cost to other court users and, in particular, to children in respect of whom court applications are required. The negative impact of disputes such as the present impact not only the parties and their families but other families who will have to wait longer for access to the court in consequence.”

Background

The parties settled their divorce proceedings in 2022, with a decree of divorce and ancillary reliefs being ordered by the High Court on 16 December 2022.

Notwithstanding that the parties had substantially complied with the terms of the divorce, difficulties relating to alleged maintenance arrears of €3689.83, the division of house contents and in respect of a joint rental property came before the High Court.

The High Court

At the outset, Ms Justice Jackson noted that the parties had been blessed with a “comfortable lifestyle, positive occupational circumstances and clearly talented and achieving children and yet they continue to engage in an acrimonious, prolonged and unseemly dialogue necessitating this application to court”.

The court further highlighted that compliance with court orders is “not selective and not partial”, and that court orders cannot and ought not to be “sliced and diced” or complied with as the performer sees fit.

Turning to the maintenance issue, Ms Justice Jackson explained that the maintenance provisions in the settlement terms ruled by the court were extremely straightforward in that there was to be an initial maintenance payment of €2,600 succeeded by a monthly payment of €500 for each of two dependent children, along with the children’s medical, educational, orthodontic and dental expenses, to be borne equally by the parties.

The court heard that the initial maintenance payment had fallen short, and that months had passed where no payment had been made for one or other of the children.

In this regard, the respondent alleged that the children were not dependent at the time when payments were not made, where they were not in full time education over the summer months and had summer jobs from which they were earning money.

Definitively rejecting the assertion that a dependent child ceases to be dependent during college vacation periods, Ms Justice Jackson referred to s.2 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 which defines a dependent family member, noting that summer employment has been the mainstay of third level students for many years and that while engaging in third-level education is a great privilege, “it does involve a situation where the normal indicia of adulthood are somewhat deferred”.

The judge continued that “resources for most are confined… as these dependent children (albeit that they are adults) are dependent upon family, State or extra-curricular earnings. Extra-curricular earnings allow for a semblance of adult independence to be enjoyed and, for those fortunate enough, some of the nonessentials of life to be experienced.”

Noting that the younger of the children had discontinued their university course during December 2023 and did not resume third-level education until September 2024, the judge considered that maintenance was due and owing for September 2024 but that a credit was due for January and February 2024, leaving a total sum owing arising from direct payments of €1,300.

As to the respondent’s deductions amounting to €1,389.83, the court pointed out that much of the sum related to payments for air travel, with a small amount of sums deducted for expenses to be divided equally under the settlement terms.

Ms Justice Jackson remarked: “It is beyond inexplicable that this matter comes before the Court and could not be resolved inter partes. The list of divisible expenses is clear… It is very difficult to comprehend the emotional trauma which this type of inter parental pettiness must have on children, even adult children.”

The judge continued: “I was shocked by the suggestion that the, albeit adult, children (now child as there is only one remaining dependent) would be involved in the expenses division exercise (the parties suggested paying the one-half share directly to the children) — children should not be made debt collectors in the context of parental unreasonableness.”

In the circumstances, the court determined inter alia that additional arrears in the sum of €1,200 should be paid to the applicant.

The court then considered the contention that the applicant had not received furniture in breach of the content division terms of the settlement, and having expressed her dissatisfaction with the respondent’s response, ordered that certain furniture be delivered to the applicant.

As to the issues arising from the joint rental property, Ms Justice Jackson recalled the terms of settlement which included that the property would be held by the parties as tenants in common, with 30 per cent held by the applicant and 70 per cent held by the respondent, and that the gross rental income would be divided amongst the parties in the same percentages as their holdings following the deduction of expenses.

The court explained that the terms of settlement provided for the creation of a property partnership agreement between the parties, noting that the respondent had rejected the draft suggested by the applicant and had failed to produce a draft of his own.

Finding that the term relating to the property partnership agreement in the settlement terms was unfortunate as it constituted an agreement to agree, with such terms being generally unenforceable due to uncertainty, the court was satisfied that the term was saved by the settlement envisaging an application to court in default.

Having directed the respondent to furnish his proposed partnership agreement, Ms Justice Jackson considered that both proposed agreements envisaged a degree of co-operation between the parties, “which on the evidence before me I do not consider to have any real prospect of success”.

Concluding that third-party management of the commercial property concerned was the only realistic option, the court ordered inter alia that the property was to be placed with a property management agency, notwithstanding that the profitability of the enterprise may be reduced.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court made orders in respect of the maintenance arrears, contents division and joint rental property.

G.G. v H.I. [2026] IEHC 21