M. (M.) v. M. (G.) [1999] IEHC 46 (25th November, 1999)

P M is no longer a dependant under the Family Law Act, 1995, so Respondent is not legally obliged to pay maintenance or related expenses for him. The lump sum payment to Applicant is not justified given the circumstances and the increase in maintenance for C M and G M addresses the financial imbalance.

Citation: [1999] IEHC 46
Parties: Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: Respondent's appeal allowed in part; lump sum payment and maintenance for P M set aside; increased maintenance for C M and G M affirmed.
Legal Topics: Maintenance, Lump Sum Payment, Dependants, Apportionment of Maintenance

Family Law Maintenance Lump Sum Payment Dependants Apportionment of Maintenance

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Applicant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether Respondent is liable to pay maintenance for P M after he ceased to be a dependant
2 Appropriateness of lump sum payment to Applicant
3 Adequacy of maintenance for C M and G M

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Respondent's appeal allowed in part; lump sum payment and maintenance for P M set aside; increased maintenance for C M and G M affirmed.

Orders

Respondent not required to pay maintenance or expenses for P M.
Respondent to pay £320 per month for each child, C M and G M.