S v R (Circuit Court Appeal; Ancillary Orders; Maintenance) (Approved)

E.      I found it somewhat unusual that, in circumstances in which she requires to supplement her income with some degree of earnings from gainful employment:

I.         While not currently dependent, I am of the view that the accommodation needs of the youngest child in the context of educational training which he is likely to undertake in the very foreseeable future are a circumstance to which I ought have regard under section 20(1) of the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996.�

J.        The substantial issue which arises in this case is whether the Respondent should be afforded an option to purchase the property.� Given that the youngest child is residing with him and is likely to continue to do so into the foreseeable future, I am of the view that the Respondent should be afforded such an option but on the following basis:

As there is not going to be a sale of the property, the equity should be calculated without deduction of sale costs.� If one spouse is buying out the interest of the other in the family home, it does not seem reasonable that the payment received by the disposing spouse is reduced by sale costs not in fact incurred.� Therefore, I am valuing the equity at �116,647.�

K.     The Applicant is also in a position to supplement her social welfare with additional income from child minding or other work.� She clearly has experience in this field of work and the evidence was far from compelling that she was not continuing so to do.� It seems to me that she has other sources of income given that she is permitting third parties to reside in the family home and carry on business from that premises without remuneration.