D v D(3) (Approved) [2023] IEHC 766 (29 December 2023)

D v D(3) (Approved) [2023] IEHC 766 (29 December 2023)

The applicant's bankruptcy, being self-initiated and based on unverified disclosures, does not in itself justify variation of the maintenance order, especially given the applicant's history of falsehood and deficient financial disclosure. The court suspends, but does not extinguish, the requirement to pay more than €3,000 per month for the duration of the bankruptcy process or six months, whichever is shorter, but does not vary or suspend liability for children's medical and dental expenses. The application for variation is considered premature and inadequately supported by credible evidence.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 766
Parties
Applicant: D; Respondent: D(3)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Variation of Maintenance Order in Family Law Proceedings / Post Judgment, Application for Variation Following Bankruptcy of Applicant
Outcome
Application for variation of maintenance order refused; partial suspension of payment obligations granted temporarily.
Legal Topics
Maintenance Variation, Bankruptcy and Family Law, Enforcement of Maintenance Orders, Disclosure and Affidavit of Means, In Camera Proceedings
Family Law Maintenance Variation Bankruptcy and Family Law Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Disclosure and Affidavit of Means In Camera Proceedings

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

Parties

D

Applicant

D(3)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Variation of Maintenance Order in Family Law Proceedings / Post Judgment, Application for Variation Following Bankruptcy of Applicant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's bankruptcy in his home country justifies a variation of the maintenance order under s.18 of the Family Law Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's affidavit of means and financial disclosure are sufficient and credible
  3. 3 Whether the in camera nature of proceedings is being abused to conceal wrongdoing

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's bankruptcy, being self-initiated and based on unverified disclosures, does not in itself justify variation of the maintenance order, especially given the applicant's history of falsehood and deficient financial disclosure. The court suspends, but does not extinguish, the requirement to pay more than €3,000 per month for the duration of the bankruptcy process or six months, whichever is shorter, but does not vary or suspend liability for children's medical and dental expenses. The application for variation is considered premature and inadequately supported by credible evidence.

Court Disposition

Application for variation of maintenance order refused; partial suspension of payment obligations granted temporarily.

Orders

  • Suspension of requirement to pay more than €3,000 per month in maintenance for the duration of the bankruptcy process or six months from judgment, whichever is shorter, without extinguishing unmet liabilities.
  • No variation or suspension of liability for children's medical and dental expenses (duly vouched).