About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 573
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice John Jordan

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice John Jordan opined: “The husband literally led his wife up the garden path and fooled her into signing the deed of separation by persuading her that the farm would be lost to himself and the children if she did not do so. His true motivation and objective was to resolve the financial issues arising out of the breakdown of the marriage at the bare minimum of cost and for a price far removed from what proper provision actually is.”

Background

The appellant husband and respondent wife were married for 25 years with two children. 

On 4 September 2020, the parties entered a deed of separation which included terms to the effect that the husband would deal with outstanding tax issues and would accept sole responsibility for the liabilities of a family company in consideration of the wife transferring her shares in the company to him, that the wife did not require personal maintenance, alimony or support from the husband, that both parties mutually renounced their rights under the Succession Act 1965 and that the deed constituted proper provision in the event of divorce proceedings and was in full and final settlement of all present and future property and financial claims against each other.

In the course of the couple’s subsequent divorce proceedings, the wife claimed that she stepped out of the marriage in 2017 as she felt that she was being unfairly blamed by her husband’s family for issues arising in the course of a Revenue audit. Thereafter in July 2018, her husband inquired about a reconciliation, which led to their reunion.

The wife alleged that a few weeks later, her husband told her that they would need to have a chat about a legal separation for the purpose of ultimately allowing their children to receive farmlands in his father’s name and that “it would all be okay as it would only be on paper”.

The wife explained that she was told that the cottage would be placed in her name until the family farm was sorted out, and that her husband would look at the emails from the solicitor and would tell her how to reply. She reported feeling very pressured by everything but continued to be intimate with her husband until January 2021, following the execution of the separation agreement.

Following the execution of the separation agreement, the wife asserted that the husband did a “180”, telling her what he had done and that she could do nothing about it. She described “reeling” from the deceit and that her husband would say nasty things such as “you came from nothing and you will go back to nothing”.

The husband appealed against the orders made by the Circuit Court to the High Court.

The High Court

Having set out the relevant case law and legislation, Mr Justice Jordan highlighted the need for transparency and honesty when swearing an affidavit of means and when giving and presenting evidence in cases where proper provision is being considered.

Considering the evidence, the judge opined: “Essentially, the wife’s case boiled down to an assertion by her that she was fooled into signing the deed of separation by believing what she was told by her husband. In effect, she believed that the signing of the deed of separation was a necessary ruse in order to ensure that the farm would be transferred into her husband’s name by his father.”

The court continued: “As things transpired, she found out that she had been fooled into signing a separation deed which was to have the intended consequence of getting her out of the family home and into the cottage (where she never wanted to be) — and very little else. The deed was really about the husband protecting his wealth.”

Noting that it was for the wife to prove what she asserted insofar as the “bogus” nature of the deed was concerned, the court stressed that much would turn on the credibility and reliability of the evidence of each spouse. The court was satisfied that the wife was a “credible historian” but that the same could not be said of the husband.

In that regard, the court accepted inter alia that the appearance of a pile of stone outside the rear gates of the family home shortly after the Circuit Court’s order was “deliberate and was intended to be threatening in terms of what the future held”, that the husband had sought to leverage the absence of his name on titles to property to his advantage and was “earmarked and destined” to acquire family lands, and that the husband was “wholly unconvincing” in relation to his worth and had not made full disclosure of his assets and income.

Mr Justice Jordan explained that the husband’s legal representatives had the difficult task of persuading the court to give effect to the deed and had failed to grapple with fundamental issues, including that the legislation when speaking of a deed of separation speaks of a legitimate deed, and added: “If the deed is bogus (as here) the court cannot ignore that fact.”

The court emphasised that it must in any event be satisfied that proper provision exists or will be made, noting that the terms of a sham deed can be given little or no weight and that it is unnecessary to declare the deed void “because a deed of separation cannot oust the court’s jurisdiction and duty to see to it that proper provision exists or will be made”.

Mr Justice Jordan was satisfied that the husband had concealed his true “worth” and had failed to properly acknowledge his beneficial ownership of the family home and deliberately failed to put that title in order “although that is easily done”.

The court then assessed the issue of proper provision having regard to s.20(2) of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996. The court was particularly concerned by the wife’s incurable health issues, finding that her health created a vulnerability for the future generally and in terms of her earning potential and accordingly, determined that the covenants against maintenance for the wife in the deed offended against proper provision.

The court was further satisfied inter alia that the wife was a hardworking member of the “team” insofar as the farm enterprise and other businesses were concerned, highlighting that “she got little credit for her work” and would have been in a much stronger position financially had she not committed herself fully to her husband’s business interests.

The court concluded that the deed of separation, in the circumstances, did not make proper provision for the wife and proposed to deal with proper provision in a manner similar to the Circuit Court’s order, with some alterations.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court made orders inter alia directing the transfer of the husband’s beneficial interest in the family home into the sole name of the wife and to have her registered as full owner as soon as possible and at his expense, granting a permanent injunction restraining the husband from interfering in any way with the wife’s use and enjoyment of the family home, and declaring that the deed of separation did not prevent the wife from applying for or being awarded spousal maintenance in the future.

L v T [2025] IEHC 573