A v A (Approved)

������������������������������������������������������������������ [2023] IEHC 375

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������ [Record No: 2017 26 M]

������������������������������������������������������������������������� A���������������������

    In all of the circumstances presenting I see no realistic alternative in terms of achieving proper provision (and a just and fair conclusion to matters) but, on the evidence before me and subject to the caveats that follow, to order that Mr A pay to Ms A one half of the value of the family assets, as arrived at by Mr Durkin, the financial advisor to Mr A (subject to the correction he made in his oral evidence), the amount of such payment to be calculated after the below caveats are taken into account:

Caveat (1) : I will make no orders at all as regards the parties� respective shares in [Stated Business A]. In other words I will ring-fence [Stated Business A] so that it is not counted in calculating the payment that Mr A will need to make to Ms A. �My intention is that the parties� involvement in [Stated Business A], unless either of them decides to change that involvement, will proceed as is, thus enabling them each to continue to collect the solid, though not very large income that comes their respective ways from [Stated Business A].