B.S -v- B.S [2013] IEHC 642 (17 December 2013)

B.S -v- B.S [2013] IEHC 642 (17 December 2013)

The court found that the applicant did not alienate the respondent from his children and that her handling of access, while flawed, did not justify penalising her by varying the apportionment of the sale proceeds. The original reasons for the 60/40 split remain valid as there has been no material change in circumstances.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 642
Parties
Applicant: B. S.; Respondent: B. S.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Circuit Appeal Family Law / Post Judgment Motion to Vary Order
Outcome
Motion to vary the apportionment of the net sale proceeds of the family home refused.
Legal Topics
Judicial Separation, Access to Children, Variation of Ancillary Orders, Apportionment of Sale Proceeds, Custody and Access Arrangements
Family Law Judicial Separation Access to Children Variation of Ancillary Orders Apportionment of Sale Proceeds Custody and Access Arrangements

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. S.

Applicant

B. S.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Circuit Appeal Family Law / Post Judgment Motion to Vary Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the apportionment of the net sale proceeds of the family home should be varied due to alleged non-compliance with access orders and alleged non-disclosure of financial resources
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be penalised for the breakdown of access between the respondent and the two youngest children

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant did not alienate the respondent from his children and that her handling of access, while flawed, did not justify penalising her by varying the apportionment of the sale proceeds. The original reasons for the 60/40 split remain valid as there has been no material change in circumstances.

Court Disposition

Motion to vary the apportionment of the net sale proceeds of the family home refused.

Orders

  • Relief sought in the motion is refused.
  • Access order of 22nd March, 2012 in respect of A has expired; access order with B still stands.