F.L.S. -v- X.X.L. [2015] IEHC 71 (06 February 2015)

F.L.S. -v- X.X.L. [2015] IEHC 71 (06 February 2015)

The court accepted the applicant's proposal for realignment of entrances as depicted in map No. 4, finding it consistent with the original judgment's scheme to enable development and sale of lands for the benefit of the applicant and dependent children. The court directed the applicant to bear the costs and responsibility for the works, subject to technical agreement and planning permission, and refused to make a declaration regarding the right of way for M. at this stage.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 71
Parties
Applicant: F. L. S.; Respondent: X. X. L.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Separation / Supplemental Judgment Following Initial Property Adjustment Order
Outcome
Supplemental orders granted as per applicant's proposal; right of way declaration refused at this time.
Legal Topics
Judicial Separation, Property Adjustment Orders, Access Rights, Planning Permission
Family Law Property Law Judicial Separation Property Adjustment Orders Access Rights Planning Permission

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. L. S.

Applicant

X. X. L.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Separation / Supplemental Judgment Following Initial Property Adjustment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed realignment of entrances and property adjustment complies with the original judgment
  2. 2 Responsibility for costs and execution of works related to property adjustment
  3. 3 Entitlement to right of way for M.

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the applicant's proposal for realignment of entrances as depicted in map No. 4, finding it consistent with the original judgment's scheme to enable development and sale of lands for the benefit of the applicant and dependent children. The court directed the applicant to bear the costs and responsibility for the works, subject to technical agreement and planning permission, and refused to make a declaration regarding the right of way for M. at this stage.

Court Disposition

Supplemental orders granted as per applicant's proposal; right of way declaration refused at this time.

Orders

  • Applicant to provide a like-for-like entrance to Cross Town House at her expense.
  • Applicant to bear costs of planning permission and works.