D. v D. [2011] IESC 18 (07 June 2011)

D. v D. [2011] IESC 18 (07 June 2011)

The High Court's lump sum order was based on asset valuations that were fundamentally undermined by a dramatic and unforeseen fall in property values after judgment. Admitting new evidence of this change was necessary to avoid injustice and to ensure proper provision for both parties. The principle of equal division remains, but the mechanism for achieving it must reflect current realities. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh determination of asset values and division.

Citation
[2011] IESC 18
Parties
Applicant/respondent: M. D.; Respondent/appellant: N. D.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; matter remitted to High Court for fresh determination.
Legal Topics
Judicial Separation, Division of Assets, Lump Sum Orders, Proper Provision, Appeals Procedure
Family Law Judicial Separation Division of Assets Lump Sum Orders Proper Provision Appeals Procedure

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. D.

Applicant/respondent

N. D.

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court's lump sum order constituted proper provision in light of the dramatic fall in property values after the judgment
  2. 2 Whether new evidence of post-judgment asset devaluation should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the principle of equal division of assets remains just in changed circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's lump sum order was based on asset valuations that were fundamentally undermined by a dramatic and unforeseen fall in property values after judgment. Admitting new evidence of this change was necessary to avoid injustice and to ensure proper provision for both parties. The principle of equal division remains, but the mechanism for achieving it must reflect current realities. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh determination of asset values and division.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; matter remitted to High Court for fresh determination.

Orders

  • Set aside the High Court order requiring payment of €2,853,000.00 lump sum.
  • Affirmed the order for sale of the 205-acre farm lands.