The High Court has upheld a Circuit Court decision and made substantial orders in favour of a wife who was misled into signing a separation agreement that failed to provide for her adequately. Delivering judgment, Mr Justice John Jordan found that the husband had orchestrated a “bogus” deed of separation to protect his own assets while persuading his wife that the arrangement was necessary to secure the family farm for their children.
The parties had been married for 25 years. In 2020, they executed a separation deed that renounced succession rights, waived maintenance, transferred the wife’s company shares to the husband and purported to constitute full and final settlement of all future claims. The wife later asserted that she had signed the document only because her husband had convinced her it was a temporary legal device required to facilitate a transfer of farmland from his father. She said she relied on his assurances, responded to solicitor correspondence as directed by him and continued to live with and maintain an intimate relationship with him until early 2021.
The judge accepted the wife’s account and found her to be a credible witness. By contrast, the husband was described as unreliable and evasive, particularly in relation to his financial disclosure. The court accepted that he had concealed his true worth, had not regularised the title to the family home despite being its beneficial owner and had used the prospect of inheriting family lands as leverage throughout the proceedings. The court also accepted that the appearance of a pile of stone at the family home after the Circuit Court ruling had been a deliberate act intended to intimidate the wife.
Mr Justice Jordan held that the deed of separation could not stand as a legitimate instrument because it had been procured through deception and was designed to exclude the wife from her rightful entitlements. While it was unnecessary to declare the deed void, its terms were entitled to little or no weight since the court retained an overriding duty to ensure proper provision under the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996.
In assessing provision, the court placed significant emphasis on the wife’s chronic health difficulties, which limited her earning capacity and increased her future vulnerability. The judge also noted her long record of work in the family farm and associated businesses, for which she had received little recognition or financial benefit.
Concluding that the separation deed failed to provide properly for the wife, the High Court ordered the transfer of the husband’s beneficial interest in the family home to her sole name, directed that she be registered as full owner at his expense and granted a permanent injunction restraining the husband from interfering with her use and enjoyment of the property. The court also confirmed that the deed did not prevent the wife from seeking or receiving spousal maintenance in the future.