A.Y. -v- B.Y. (Rev 1) [2018] IEHC 411 (28 March 2018)

A.Y. -v- B.Y. (Rev 1) [2018] IEHC 411 (28 March 2018)

The respondent was not guilty of wilful contempt as the evidence did not establish deliberate or intentional non-compliance; the facility letter was in fact disclosed prior to settlement, so there was no material non-disclosure. However, the respondent admitted non-payment of €750,000 and €2,000,000 due under the settlement, and the applicant was entitled to judgment for those sums and interest. The respondent's application for downward variation of maintenance was refused as he failed to establish a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant such variation at this time.

Citation
[2018] IEHC 411
Parties
Applicant: A. Y.; Respondent: B. Y.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Family Law Divorce/ancillary Relief / Post Divorce Enforcement and Variation Motions
Outcome
Applicant granted judgment for unpaid sums and interest; respondent's application for downward variation refused; committal for contempt not ordered.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Ancillary Relief, Enforcement of Settlement, Variation of Maintenance, Financial Disclosure, Committal for Contempt
Family Law Divorce Ancillary Relief Enforcement of Settlement Variation of Maintenance Financial Disclosure Committal for Contempt

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. Y.

Applicant

B. Y.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Divorce/ancillary Relief / Post Divorce Enforcement and Variation Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in wilful contempt for non-payment of sums due under the divorce settlement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent failed to make full financial disclosure prior to settlement.
  3. 3 Whether the terms of settlement should be varied due to alleged change in circumstances and respondent's financial position.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was not guilty of wilful contempt as the evidence did not establish deliberate or intentional non-compliance; the facility letter was in fact disclosed prior to settlement, so there was no material non-disclosure. However, the respondent admitted non-payment of €750,000 and €2,000,000 due under the settlement, and the applicant was entitled to judgment for those sums and interest. The respondent's application for downward variation of maintenance was refused as he failed to establish a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant such variation at this time.

Court Disposition

Applicant granted judgment for unpaid sums and interest; respondent's application for downward variation refused; committal for contempt not ordered.

Orders

  • Judgment for applicant against respondent in the sum of €3,500,000 (comprising €750,000 and €2,000,000 plus interest of €270,000 and €480,000 respectively)
  • Interest to accrue on judgment sum until payment