M. (F. T.) v. M. (C.T.)

The applicant and the respondent were married to one another on the 21 st October, 1970, in London. They have two children born to the marriage, a daughter A. born on the 21 st July, 1977, and R. born on the 27 th October, 1978. Both children, having completed most of their third level education, are heading into their chosen professions at this stage.

The applicant claims in these proceedings a decree of judicial separation pursuant to the provisions of s. 2(1)(a), (b) and (f) and s. 3 of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989 and the usual extensive and ancillary reliefs. Subsequently by order dated the 22 nd June, 2004, Mr. Justice McKechnie ordered:

Difficulties in the marriage arose, in my view, from the intervention of a particular series of misfortunes commencing with the financing of an enterprise initiated by the respondent's brother by a loan raised and secured on the assets of the company. Extensive developments were put in train in America with a view to setting up a business by the respondent's brother and, before these could come to a conclusion or achieve any degree of success or liquidity, the respondent's brother tragically died.

Having considered the case in the round and having regard to the fact that it is unnecessary to seek to disturb these English trusts, I have decided that it is fair and just to adapt that working assumption which was made having heard the evidence at the time as a finding in relation to how the English property is to be credited to the parties in any provisions made for them in this judgment.

The respondent suggested that the Court would break the trust, suggesting that the lands were not in fact conveyed to the company or comprised in the Repus Trust but were still the subject of an earlier family trust. I find that the evidence goes entirely the other way.