Evidence-Based Domestic Violence Safety Orders & Proportional Ancillary Relief in Short-Term Marriages

1. Introduction

The High Court decision in E v N (Approved) [2025] IEHC 323 addresses two core issues in family law proceedings: (a) the evidentiary threshold for granting safety orders under the Domestic Violence Act 2018 and (b) the proper calculation of ancillary relief in a relatively brief marriage with modest matrimonial assets.

Parties:

E (Applicant/Respondent) – the wife/mother, born 1978, part-time manager, primary carer.
N (Respondent/Appellant) – the husband/father, born 1970, international employee, held on disability leave.

Facts in brief:

2012 marriage in the USA; one child (A, born 2016) after a traumatic birth that caused serious injuries to the mother and initial developmental concerns for A.
2018: judicial separation proceedings initiated by wife; 2024: husband began divorce proceedings before the Circuit Court finalised separation.
High-conflict litigation spanned District, Circuit and High Courts, generating legal bills approaching €500,000 against total matrimonial assets of roughly €1.1 million.
Circuit Court granted a comprehensive relief package and a safety order under s.6, Domestic Violence Act 2018; husband appealed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Mr Justice Jordan allowed key aspects of the husband’s appeal:

Safety Order (s.6, 2018 Act) set aside for lack of objective evidence that mother or child’s safety/welfare required it.
Broad injunction restraining the father from approaching or entering the mother’s home established to delineate boundaries.
Maintenance for child A (€1,100/month, CPI-linked) affirmed, secured by life-policy assignment or equivalent.
Spousal relief recalibrated: subdivision of assets on a 25%-75% basis (wife 25%), delivered by lump sums (€172,600 already paid; further €102,400 by staged payments to reach €275,000 total).
Access arrangements confirmed and refined, with a strong recommendation for play therapy and structured communication via an app.
No order for costs as court balanced substantial and partly offsetting litigation costs.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

D.T. v C.T. [2002] 3 I.R. 334 (Supreme Court) Emphasises “proper provision” reflecting equal partnership and autonomy of spouses; introduced the one-third “yardstick” as a cross-check. It underpinned the breakdown of asset division discretion and rejection of a mandatory 50:50 rule.
N.O. v P.Q. [2021] IECA 177 (Court of Appeal) Reiterates statutory checklist under s.16(2) of the 1995 Act and s.20 of the 1996 Act; confirms flexibility of relief and relevance of all circumstances, including inherited assets.
Q.R. v S.T. [2018] IEHC (as cited by Whelan J.) Advocated calculation of hypothetical equal division as a “cross-check” against discrimination.
White v White [2001] 1 A.C. 596 & Cowan v Cowan [2002] Fam. 97 (UK) Discouraged discrimination against homemakers; endorsed equal-division cross-check.
G v G [2011] 3 I.R. 717 & HN v BN (BY) [2016] IEHC 330 Addressed treatment of inherited farm assets; clarified that assets acquired outside marriage may attract a reduced share but each case turns on its facts.
M. v S. [2020] IEHC 562 Summarises non-discrimination principle and discretionary power to make lump sums, periodics, pension orders per s.20(1) 1996 Act.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Safety Order under Domestic Violence Act 2018
Section 6(2) requires “reasonable grounds” based on evidence that the applicant’s or a dependent’s safety/welfare is at risk. The court found no direct or persuasive circumstantial evidence of violence, threats or coercion warranting such an order. Procedural history showed the mother did not press for this relief at trial, and the Circuit Court judge’s sua sponte grant exceeded the evidentiary foundation.
Proper Provision & Asset Division
Under s.20(1) Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 and applicable constitutional duty (Art 41.3.2), the court must consider a non-exhaustive checklist: incomes, needs, resources, standard of living, marriage duration, health, contributions, conduct, child welfare, etc. • The short duration (4½ years) and modest matrimonial assets, heavily influenced by inheritances, located the case at the “lower end” of the one-third yardstick. • The wife’s part-time earnings and improving prospects reduced her dependency. • The husband’s creation of a €58,000 trust for A and ongoing generous child maintenance further balanced provision. • Consequently, relief to the wife was fixed at 25% of net assets (€1.1 m → €275,000) delivered in staged lump sums after crediting sums already paid.
Access & Child Welfare
Confirming 2023 access orders, Court refined video calls, holiday exchanges, recommended play therapy under s.32, and formal communication via a parenting app. This structured approach aims to lower parental conflict and support A’s emotional needs.

3.3 Impact

Safety Orders: Courts will insist on a demonstrable evidentiary basis before issuing s.6 orders. Applicants must adduce objective or persuasive evidence of risk; judicial overreach will be vulnerable to appeal.
Ancillary Relief in Short Marriages: Reinforces flexible, fact-sensitive application of the one-third yardstick; discourages disproportionately generous relief in brief unions with limited matrimonial wealth.
Family Court Procedures: Highlights the cost and delay of multi-tier litigation; underscores the importance of legal aid where available and proportional conduct in correspondence and pleadings.
Structured Communication & Therapeutics: Endorses apps (e.g., MyFamilyWizard) and play therapy as tools to manage high-conflict parenting post-separation.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Safety Order (s.6, Domestic Violence Act 2018): Injunction preventing violence/threats/harassment toward a protected person. Requires “reasonable grounds” based on evidence of risk to safety or welfare.
Proper Provision: Relief (lump sum, periodics, property adjustment, pension order) ensuring fair post-divorce financial support. Not a mechanical 50:50 split; guided by statutory factors and “yardstick” benchmarks.
Yardstick of One-Third: A Supreme Court benchmark at the lower–end of fair shares; serves as a cross-check, not a mandatory fraction.
Section 20(1) Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996: Core discretionary power to provide for spouses and dependants. Subsection (2) lists factors such as income, needs, marriage duration, health, contributions, conduct, pension rights, etc.
Life-Policy Assignment: Security mechanism whereby the payer designates a death-benefit policy to guarantee ongoing maintenance if the payer dies.

5. Conclusion

E v N establishes important guideposts:

Domestic violence safety orders demand an evidentiary foundation; judicial initiative without proof will be set aside on appeal.
In short marriages with limited matrimonial assets, courts will apply the discretionary “yardstick” at a lower fraction—here 25%—reflecting the couple’s brief partnership.
Parties should seek legal aid when eligible, conduct litigation proportionately, and use structured communication/therapeutic interventions to shield children from parental acrimony.

This judgment will inform practitioners and litigants alike that evidence is paramount for protective relief, and that ancillary relief must align with statutory criteria and the real-world context of each family.