BC -v- MC [2012] IEHC 602 (13 August 2012)

BC -v- MC [2012] IEHC 602 (13 August 2012)

The respondent's need for maintenance has increased due to reduced earnings, and the applicant can afford an increase. Proper provision requires both increased maintenance and a lump sum for future security. No blocking order should be made under Section 18(10) as proper provision for post-death maintenance cannot be made now, thus the respondent should retain the right to apply for post-death maintenance. Notification of any sale or disposal of the business or land is necessary to protect the respondent's future interests.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 602
Parties
Applicant/appellant: BC; Respondent: MC
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Divorce Appeal / High Court Appeal From Circuit Court Decree of Divorce and Ancillary Orders
Outcome
Decree of divorce affirmed; ancillary orders varied.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Maintenance, Lump Sum Payment, Pension Adjustment Order, Blocking Order, Post Death Maintenance, Property Notification
Family Law Divorce Maintenance Lump Sum Payment Pension Adjustment Order Blocking Order Post Death Maintenance Property Notification

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

Parties

BC

Applicant/appellant

MC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Appeal / High Court Appeal From Circuit Court Decree of Divorce and Ancillary Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether maintenance for the respondent should be increased post-divorce
  2. 2 Whether a lump sum should be paid to the respondent for future security
  3. 3 Whether a blocking order under Section 18(10) of the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 should be made, precluding post-death maintenance claims

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's need for maintenance has increased due to reduced earnings, and the applicant can afford an increase. Proper provision requires both increased maintenance and a lump sum for future security. No blocking order should be made under Section 18(10) as proper provision for post-death maintenance cannot be made now, thus the respondent should retain the right to apply for post-death maintenance. Notification of any sale or disposal of the business or land is necessary to protect the respondent's future interests.

Court Disposition

Decree of divorce affirmed; ancillary orders varied.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay respondent a lump sum of €35,000 within three months (by 8 November 2012), liberty to apply if unpaid.
  • Applicant to pay respondent maintenance of €300 per week gross from 1 September 2012, indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index, by standing order.