Summary of High Court Ex Tempore Judgment — Appeal from Circuit Family Court

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant issued a Civil Bill on 1 November 2022 seeking a Decree of Divorce and ancillary reliefs. The Civil Bill annexed a Deed of Separation dated 2018. Prior to that Deed, the family home was held by the parties as joint tenants. The Deed severed the joint tenancy, transferred the Applicant's half-interest to trustees, and established a trust giving the Respondent the benefit of the property for her lifetime with the children to have the benefit thereafter as tenants in common in equal shares. The mortgage on the family home was redeemed as part of that Deed and the mortgage balance at the time was €191,016. The Applicant contends the mortgage was discharged by a personal loan from his father; the Respondent disputes adequacy of disclosure regarding that transaction.

The Civil Bill seeks mutual section 18(10) orders under the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996, appearing to proceed on the basis that the Deed of Separation provides the financial framework for the divorce. The Deed contains unusual clauses (for example a four-year review clause and a maintenance clause that does not allocate sums between the Respondent and the children) and lacks an explicit full-and-final settlement clause and any clause indicating full financial disclosure at the time of execution.

The Applicant has sworn multiple Affidavits of Means (13 October 2022; 16 January 2024; 4 September 2024). The last of these records an increase in the Applicant's bank balances by approximately €150,000 and indicates he had no income at that time, though the circumstances of these changes were explained in subsequent materials. The Respondent filed an Affidavit of Means on 22 June 2023. A Defence and Counterclaim filed by the Respondent on 5 October 2023 alleges that the Applicant has a beneficial interest in Company A and seeks clarification of the loan agreement said to have resulted in discharge of the family home mortgage.

The Circuit Family Court made an Order on 29 July 2025 transferring the proceedings to the High Court. The Applicant appealed that Order to the High Court. The Motion to transfer was grounded on an Affidavit sworn by Attorney Walsh on 1 October 2024 (the Respondent's solicitor), which among other things complained of deficiencies in the Applicant's vouching on multiple listed hearing dates and alleged that the Applicant worked for Company A all his working life and was a director thereof.

Exhibited material (including a forensic accountant's report by Attorney Healy) records that Company A was sold to a third party circa August 2024, with corporate restructuring that separated the trading business and property interests into Company B and Company C. The legal shareholdings in Company B and Company C are held by the Applicant's parents; the Applicant is not a shareholder but was a director and received director's emoluments. The Applicant received an ex-gratia payment of €200,000 in the context of the sale. The Respondent asserts a beneficial interest in the companies; the Applicant and his parents deny any beneficial ownership. Several affidavits and documentary materials were filed in support of the respective positions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether these proceedings should be transferred from the Circuit Family Court to the High Court.
2. Whether the mandatory transfer provision in section 38(2) of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 applies because the proceedings concern land with a market value exceeding €3,000,000.
3. Whether, in the exercise of the court's discretion (pursuant to section 22 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 as amended), the action is fit to be tried in the High Court and whether the High Court is the more appropriate tribunal in the circumstances.
4. Whether assertions of the Applicant's beneficial interests in corporate entities and issues of potential non-party discovery create sufficient complexity to justify transfer.
5. Whether potential arguments about future inheritances or asset acquisitions require High Court determination (involving consideration of "circumstances" in section 20(1) and "foreseeable future" in section 20(2)(a) of the 1996 Act).

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant denies any legal or beneficial ownership of shares in Company A, Company B or Company C and denies that these companies are "the family business" as alleged by the Respondent.
• The Applicant contends that the vouching and disclosure provided are proper, that the case value as shown in the parties' Affidavits of Means is well below the mandatory transfer threshold, and that there is no evidence supporting an assertion that the assets including real property exceed €3,000,000.
• The Applicant argues that the assertions of beneficial ownership by the Respondent are contested, were not raised during negotiation of the Deed of Separation, and have not been supported by non-party discovery applications (none having been made).
• The Applicant references documentary support from company auditors, Company B's solicitors, and the Register of Beneficial Interests corroborating the absence of beneficial interest.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent asserts that the Applicant has a beneficial interest in Company A (and related corporate structures) and that this must be interrogated, including the nature of the loan that discharged the family home mortgage.
• The Respondent submits that corporate restructuring and the asserted beneficial interest make the case complex, likely requiring substantial discovery and supporting transfer to the High Court.
• The Respondent suggests that the Applicant has received significant remuneration or dividends and that the total assets including real property exceed €3,000,000 (an assertion for which the court found no evidential basis).
• The Respondent contends that the ex-gratia payment of €200,000 requires clarification and that non-party discovery may be necessary to investigate the corporate and transactional history.
• The Respondent also raises arguments concerning whether future inheritances or asset acquisition should be taken into account under section 20 of the 1996 Act.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Judge (Judge Jackson) confined the decision before the Court to whether the Circuit Family Court's order transferring the proceedings to the High Court should stand. The Judge analyzed two statutory bases for transfer:

1. Mandatory transfer under section 38(2) of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996, which applies where proceedings "concern land" with a market value exceeding €3,000,000. The Judge found the evidence before her—principally the parties' Affidavits of Means and the affidavits filed on the motion—did not establish that the statutory valuation threshold was met. There was no reliable evidence of a beneficial interest value in corporate shareholdings and the pleaded and evidential material on asset values were significantly below the statutory figure.
2. Discretionary transfer under section 22 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 (as amended). The Judge identified the two relevant questions: (a) whether the action is fit to be tried in the High Court, and (b) whether the High Court is the more appropriate tribunal in the circumstances. The Judge observed that the legislature has created concurrent jurisdiction and that the Circuit Family Court is experienced in determining divorce ancillary reliefs, including scrutiny of separation agreements and applications for discovery. The Judge concluded that, while the matter could be tried in the High Court, there was insufficient reason on the evidence to conclude that the High Court was the more appropriate forum.

In reaching this conclusion the Judge emphasized:

• The absence of admissible evidence supporting the Respondent's assertion that assets (including real property) exceed €3,000,000;
• The Applicant's denials of beneficial ownership supported by documentary material and by an affidavit from the Applicant's father denying any transfer or trust arrangement in favour of the Applicant;
• That contested assertions of beneficial ownership and the potential need for discovery do not, on the present materials, demonstrate a degree of complexity or value that removes the matter from the competence of the Circuit Family Court;
• That no non-party discovery application had been made, and the Circuit Family Court has adequate procedural powers to deal with such applications should they be necessary;
• There has been some delay in the proceedings but delay attributable to the motion and the appeals was not a sufficient reason to order transfer; the Judge requested expedition by the Circuit Family Court in listing any necessary disclosure applications or the substantive hearing.

The Judge declined to determine substantive factual disputes (for example, on beneficial ownership or the true nature of the ex-gratia payment) at this interlocutory stage, noting those matters will require evidence at the substantive hearing.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and set aside the Circuit Family Court's Order transferring the proceedings to the High Court. The proceedings are to continue in the Circuit Family Court.

Implications:

• Direct effect: the case will proceed in the Circuit Family Court, where any applications for disclosure, contest about the Deed of Separation, and contested factual issues (including alleged beneficial interests in corporate entities and the nature of the ex-gratia payment) are to be determined at the substantive hearing.
• The Judge invited the Circuit Family Court to provide expedition in listing any necessary procedural or substantive hearings to avoid further delay.
• No new legal precedent was established by this interlocutory decision; the ruling was an exercise of statutory construction and judicial discretion as applied to the facts and evidence before the Court.

Administrative notes (anonymized): The judgment was delivered by Judge Jackson on 1 December 2025. Key professionals and witnesses referred to in the materials are anonymized in this summary as Attorney Walsh, Attorney Spain, Attorney Byron, Attorney Healy, and "Applicant's parents" where relevant. Corporate entities are referenced as Company A, Company B and Company C in accordance with the provided opinion.