T. (D.) v. T. (C.) [2002] IESC 68 (14 October 2002)

T. (D.) v. T. (C.) [2002] IESC 68 (14 October 2002)

The High Court correctly exercised its discretion in awarding the respondent a lump sum representing 38% of the net assets, reflecting her contributions and loss of career opportunity, and in valuing assets at the date of trial. The adjustment of the pension division based on conduct was not justified as the conduct was not 'obvious and gross'.

Citation
[2002] IESC 68
Parties
Applicant/appellant: D. M. P. T.; Respondent: C. T.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Divorce/ancillary Relief Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed save as to pension adjustment order; High Court order affirmed except for pension division.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Ancillary Relief, Lump Sum Orders, Pension Adjustment Orders, Proper Provision, Asset Division
Family Law Divorce Ancillary Relief Lump Sum Orders Pension Adjustment Orders Proper Provision Asset Division

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. M. P. T.

Applicant/appellant

C. T.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce/ancillary Relief Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in its assessment and division of assets and pension rights on divorce under the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to properly apply the statutory criteria for 'proper provision'
  3. 3 Whether assets acquired post-separation should be included in the divisible pool

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court correctly exercised its discretion in awarding the respondent a lump sum representing 38% of the net assets, reflecting her contributions and loss of career opportunity, and in valuing assets at the date of trial. The adjustment of the pension division based on conduct was not justified as the conduct was not 'obvious and gross'.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed save as to pension adjustment order; High Court order affirmed except for pension division.

Orders

  • Lump sum of £5 million to respondent payable in instalments over 18 months affirmed.
  • Pension adjustment order varied: division to be 49% to applicant and 51% to respondent, not 45%/55%.