RL v MR – Re-Drawing the Line Between “Living Apart” and “No Normal Marital Relationship” and Strengthening Financial-Disclosure Duties in Family Proceedings

Introduction

RL v MR ([2025] IEHC 340) is a High Court decision delivered by Ms Justice Nuala Jackson which clarifies two critical aspects of Irish family law:

1. How the courts differentiate between the concepts of “living apart” under s.5 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 and “absence of a normal marital relationship” under s.2(1)(f) of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989.
2. The extent of the parties’ duty to make full and timely financial disclosure when ancillary relief is sought.

The Applicant wife (RL) sought a decree of divorce together with ancillary financial and child-related reliefs. The Respondent husband (MR), initially silent, later opposed the divorce and filed an affidavit asserting that the statutory proofs were not satisfied. Eventually the Court:

• Refused a decree of divorce because the spouses had not lived apart for two of the previous three years at the time proceedings issued (2 June 2022);
• Granted a decree of judicial separation on the ground that a normal marital relationship had not existed for at least one year immediately preceding the application (s.2(1)(f) 1989 Act);
• Made wide-ranging ancillary orders, including maintenance, property declarations and indemnities.

Summary of the Judgment

• Living Apart Test Fails: Although the couple had separate bedrooms from November 2019 and two homes from February 2020, the Court found continued family holidays, shared finances and lack of clear intention to separate until Autumn 2021. Therefore, the “living apart for two of last three years” test under s.5 1996 Act was not met.
• No Normal Marital Relationship Proven: From late 2019 the parties’ intimacy, emotional connection and marital commitment had ceased. That satisfied s.2(1)(f) of the 1989 Act, allowing a judicial separation.
• Ancillary Reliefs: The Court emphasised proper provision (s.16 1995 Act) and:
  • Confirmed the wife’s sole beneficial ownership of her pre-marriage Meath home and treated €120,000 previously transferred from MR as a lump-sum provision for her and the child;
  • Declined to transfer any interest in that home to MR (clean break principle in a short marriage);
  • Declared MR the beneficial owner of his company shares and directors’ loans, but ordered him to indemnify RL against any alleged company debts;
  • Ordered child maintenance of €750 per month, with shared responsibility for specific extra expenses.
• Disclosure Failings Criticised: Justice Jackson castigated MR’s piecemeal production of documents, late delivery of company accounts and lack of clarity on tax and loan liabilities, underscoring parties’ obligations under court practice directions.
• Costs and Further Orders: Matter listed for mention on 27 June 2025 to deal with residual orders and costs, signalling potential cost penalties linked to disclosure defaults.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. McA v McA [2000] 1 IR 457 – first Irish authority to recognise that spouses can “live apart” under the same roof by applying a mixed objective/subjective test.
2. R v M [2023] IEHC 748 – latest guidance on “living apart” post-2019 amendment to s.5 1996 Act; emphasised segregated lifestyles within one dwelling.
3. TF v Ireland [1995] 1 IR 321, JD v PD (1995) and VS v RS (1991) – older authorities construing “breakdown of marriage” and “normal marital relationship” for judicial-separation purposes.
4. Text authorities: Shannon, “Divorce Law and Practice” (2007) and Shatter, “Family Law” (4th ed. 1997) discussing subjective intent and “functioning marriage.”

Justice Jackson synthesised these cases to confirm that:

• “Living apart” demands both physical and psychological separation and a conscious intention to cease cohabiting as spouses.
• “No normal marital relationship” focuses on loss of essential marital ingredients (companionship, commitment, emotional connection) even if joint residence or family activities persist.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. The Two-Tier Gateway
   Justice Jackson adopted a sequential approach:
   1. Test for divorce first (Art 41.3.2° Constitution & s.5 1996 Act);
   2. If unmet, test for judicial separation (s.2 1989 Act).
   This avoids granting relief without constitutional/statutory jurisdiction.
2. Factual Matrix and Mixed Test
   Applying McA and s.5(1A) 1996 Act, the Court balanced objective indicators (separate bedrooms, two houses, holidays, finances) with subjective evidence (parties’ intentions). Continuation of joint holidays, family room sharing and salary restructuring negated living-apart status.
3. Section 2(1)(f) Threshold
   The Judge distinguished between co-parenting and marriage. The parties’ devotion to their child could coexist with breakdown of the marital relationship. Citing TF v Ireland, the Court found the “corner-stone” of love and trust had been withdrawn since late 2019.
4. Proper Provision and Clean Break
   A short marriage (2018-2021) plus RL’s pre-marriage home and MR’s family-origin business assets called for limited redistribution. The Court favoured a “clean break” by:
   • Leaving RL’s property untouched;
   • Leaving MR’s minority corporate interests untouched;
   • Addressing inequality through child maintenance and indemnities.
5. Disclosure Obligations
   The judgment is replete with references to MR’s “most concerning” failure to supply timely accounts, CGT confirmations, credit-card records and loan details. Justice Jackson highlighted:
   • Practice Direction & case-management orders are binding;
   • Parties bear the burden of explaining corporate and tax matters within their control;
   • Failure may influence credibility, ancillary relief outcomes and costs.

C. Impact

• Evidential Guidance: Practitioners now have a roadmap distinguishing living apart from no normal marital relationship, especially where couples oscillate between two homes or continue joint holidays “for the children.”
• Strategic Litigation: Petitioners should carefully select the appropriate remedy (divorce v judicial separation) based on timelines and lifestyle evidence; mis-timed divorce filings risk dismissal.
• Disclosure Standards Elevated: The Court’s censure signals that half-measures in financial discovery may attract adverse inferences, indemnities and cost sanctions.
• Clean Break in Short Marriages: RL v MR reinforces the judicial preference for ring-fencing pre-marriage assets in short unions unless fairness demands transfer.
• Shared-Care Situations: Even with a 50-50 care split, child maintenance may still flow where incomes diverge—€750 p.m. in this case—suggesting that shared care does not mean zero maintenance.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Living Apart (Divorce)

Spouses must be separate in body and mind for two of the prior three years. Occasional shared meals or holidays may be tolerated, but ongoing family life and joint intention defeat the test.

No Normal Marital Relationship (Judicial Separation)

Focuses on the quality of the relationship, not just residence. Absence of intimacy, trust, emotional support or co-decision-making for 12+ months suffices.

Proper Provision

A constitutional & statutory requirement that the Court ensure fair financial and child arrangements on separation. It is forward-looking rather than punitive.

D v D Schedule

A comparative balance-sheet tool listing each party’s assets and liabilities, often used with expert forensic accountants to guide equitable division.

Minority Discount

Reduction applied when valuing a small shareholding in a private company, reflecting lack of control and marketability.

Indemnity Order

A direction that one party must shield the other from liability—here, any company claims against RL for historic withdrawals.

Conclusion

RL v MR breaks new ground by crystallising the subtle but critical divide between being physically separated and being maritally disconnected. It emphasises that:

• Filing for divorce prematurely can fail where factual evidence shows residual family unity;
• Judicial separation offers a viable alternative when intimacy and commitment are gone;
• Parties who control complex corporate structures must disclose, explain and evidence their finances rigorously;
• Short marriages will often attract a clean-break philosophy, with pre-existing property protected;
• Shared parenting does not extinguish maintenance where income disparities persist.

In practical terms, the judgment will influence how solicitors assemble evidence, advise on timing of divorce petitions, and manage disclosure, while providing the courts with a persuasive precedent for balancing fairness with constitutional requirements.