O. v D.; O v D. (Approved) [2023] IEHC 570 (02 October 2023)

O. v D.; O v D. (Approved) [2023] IEHC 570 (02 October 2023)

The Circuit Court had jurisdiction under s.19 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 to order the sale of property owned by the appellant after making a lump sum order, and the appellant's campaign of obstruction justified the orders. The limitations argued by the appellant are not contained in s.19 and cannot be read into the section. The orders were not a disproportionate interference with property rights.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 570
Parties
Applicant/respondent: O.; Respondent/appellant: D.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / High Court Appeal From Circuit Court Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Circuit Court orders affirmed.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Ancillary Orders, Property Sale, Enforcement of Court Orders, Jurisdiction, Contempt of Court
Family Law Divorce Ancillary Orders Property Sale Enforcement of Court Orders Jurisdiction Contempt of Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

O.

Applicant/respondent

D.

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / High Court Appeal From Circuit Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Circuit Court have jurisdiction under s.19 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 to order the sale of property owned solely by one spouse?
  2. 2 Was the order for sale a disproportionate interference with constitutionally protected property rights?
  3. 3 Did the Circuit Court err by not affording the mortgage creditor an opportunity to make representations?

Ratio Decidendi

The Circuit Court had jurisdiction under s.19 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 to order the sale of property owned by the appellant after making a lump sum order, and the appellant's campaign of obstruction justified the orders. The limitations argued by the appellant are not contained in s.19 and cannot be read into the section. The orders were not a disproportionate interference with property rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Circuit Court orders affirmed.

Orders

  • No order as to costs for motion to extend time.
  • Costs of appeal awarded to respondent, Mrs. O., to be adjudicated in default of agreement.