High Court dismisses appeal on divorce ancillary reliefs where full pension disclosure was proven at hearing.

APPROVED

REDACTED

FOR PUBLICATION

THE HIGH COURT

FAMILY LAW

CIRCUIT APPEAL

SOUTH WESTERN CIRCUIT COUNTY OF KERRY

IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT, 1996

[2025] IEHC 751

Record No. 2024 56 CAF; 2024 17 CAF; 2024 30 CAF

BETWEEN/

D.D.

APPLICANT

AND

B.B.

RESPONDENT

Judgement of Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson delivered on the 17th December 2025:

1. I heard this matter by way of appeal from the Circuit Family Court. The application being made was an application for divorce and ancillary reliefs. I heard the case over a number of days (in particular the 6th and 7th March 2025) and Orders were made in the appeal on the 28th May 2025 (perfected on the 29th May 2025). To the huge credit of the parties in this difficult matter, many matters were agreed between them, and I was asked to determine only a small number of outstanding issues. The Order reflects that the provisions of it were partially achieved through compromise between the parties and partly by way of court determination. The Order of the 28th May 2025 entirely disposes of the appeal.

2. The matter has come back before me on a number of occasions, arising from two separate applications made by the Appellant wife. The provision of the orders of this court in respect of which the first application was made concerned a stay which I had placed on certain of the orders made by me. The relevant order states:

“THE COURT NOTING that the parties acknowledge that the Respondent has received 50% of the Irish Life ARF and that the Applicant has received funds from Standard Life. Minimal pension adjustment orders pursuant to section 17(2) and section 17(3) of the 1996 Act together with section 17(26) blocking orders. Each party will retain the benefit of any pensions(s) held by them to include the Respondent having 100% of the Acorn Life Pension solely in her name and the Applicant is entitled to the entire remainder of the sums in the Irish Life Pension, it being acknowledge that the Respondent has already received 50% of such Irish Life Pension. This Order is subject always to the Order that neither party is to be entitled to encash any pension or persons held by them pending the sale of the family home. This Order shall be vacated upon the closing of the sale of the family home in accordance with the terms herein.” (underlining added)

3. The family home has not been sold yet, the date of such sale having been deferred pursuant to my orders to a date consistent with the best interests of the dependent children. The Appellant wife sought a lifting of the stay referenced above in relation to pension encashment in circumstances in which a particular financial need had arisen. The Respondent husband opposed any full lifting of the stay but did suggest a variation of the stay terms. In the circumstances and having regard to the evidence before me concerning financial requisites (evidence which the Respondent husband did not substantially dispute), I varied the order to permit partial encashment by the Appellant of her pension provision.

4. The Appellant has now brought another application before the Court. She seeks a review of the ancillary relief orders made by me on the basis of an asserted nondisclosure of assets by the Respondent. The motion currently being brought seeks a further pension adjustment order or other provision in favour of the Appellant on such grounds. The Affidavit in support of this application states, inter alia:

1. “I reject his proposals in their current form as inadequate and premature pending full financial disclosure and proper valuation of all matrimonial assets, including pensions and other financial instruments held in his name.

2. I now seek a Pension Adjustment Order not only in relation to the Acorn Life Pension [REDACTED] but also in respect of a Standard Life Synergy Buy Out Bond, the proceeds of which Mr. D.D. surrendered in the midst of our divorce proceedings without my knowledge or consent.

3. I state that Mr. D.D. failed to disclose this asset and its surrender during the divorce hearing and in his sworn Affidavit of Means, which constitutes nondisclosure and asset stripping contrary to the principles of full and frank disclosure required under the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996.

4. I only became aware of this surrender approximately three weeks after our Decree of Divorce was granted on 28th May 2025 by Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson. On review, it is evident that the Standard Life Synergy Buy Out Bond policies had an €80,000 tax-free lump sum component available to D.D.

at the time of surrender.

5. As his lawful wife at the time and given that this financial transaction occurred during the course of ongoing divorce proceedings, I am legally and equitably entitled to 50% of that lump sum (€40,000) which represents my fair share of that matrimonial asset.

6. I therefore request that this Honourable Court now issue a Pension Adjustment Order directing that:

a. Mr. D.D. immediately disclose all documentation relating to the Standard Life Synergy Buy Out Bond policies, including surrender values, dates, and bank records of the proceeds;

b. A 50% share (€40,000) be paid to me forthwith, or such portion as the Court deems just and equitable;

c. The Court recognise this as a post-divorce asset recovery due to fraudulent concealment of assets and material non-disclosure.

7. I further state that my financial situation remains urgent and precarious. I am reliant on this Court’s intervention to ensure fair division of assets and to prevent further injustice caused by the applicant’s deliberate actions.

8. I rely on my previously sworn Grounding Affidavit dated 15th October 2025, together with exhibits BB1–BB5, and I reserve the right to file further evidence as necessary.

9. In conclusion, I respectfully request that this Honourable Court:

a. Grant the Pension Adjustment Orders sought in respect of both the Acorn Life and Standard Life Synergy policies;

b. Direct immediate disclosure and payment of my lawful entitlement;

c. Make such further or other order as this Honourable Court deems just and proper.”

5. The Appellant asserts that she should receive the remaining pension provision in respect of the Standard Life (now with Irish Life) pension of the Respondent on the basis that he had previously received €80,000 from this pension which receipt was undisclosed by him. The Respondent disputes this. He has filed a replying Affidavit to the Appellant’s application which, inter alia, states:

“1. A Notice for Motion lodged by the Respondent claiming that the Applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of the surrender of a Standard Life pension during the course of the divorce proceedings and the Respondents assertion that this sum was not adjudicated upon by the Court.

2. I refute the above allegation. Nearly a full day of the divorce hearing was spent on discussing my Pension history and I provided a full and clearly documented history of my Pensions to the courts (appended here for ease of reference but originals were submitted as part of the Disclosure for the Divorce hearing).

3. The Decree of Divorce (reference BB1 in the Respondents attachments to her Notice of Motion dated the 4th November), granted by Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson on 28th May 2025, clearly states on Page 5, Paragraph 4, Line 2 “and that the Applicant has received funds from Standard Life”.”

6. Two issues arise in this matter:

1. Was there a non-disclosure on the part of the Respondent to the appeal? When this matter came before me, I indicated that I would listen to the DAR in respect of the hearing herein, it being my recollection that the partial encashment and receipt of funds from the Standard Life (Irish Life) pension had been fully aired and considered at the hearing before me. I have done so, and I am satisfied that there was full disclosure and discussion of this at the hearing. The position was that the Appellant had already received 50% of the Irish Life pension by way of encashment. The Respondent retained the other 50%. The Respondent had received the lump sum payment (which he disclosed to me at the hearing (6th March 2025 12.35ff)) and, in recognition of this, the Appellant retained the entirety of the Acorn Life Pension. In circumstances in which there is no nondisclosure, I am refusing the reliefs sought by the Respondent in her current motion.

2. Subject to the usual undertakings in relation to costs, I will permit either party to take up the DAR transcript in respect of the hearing in order that the relevant discussions may be available to them.

3. It should further be stated that if any issue of non-disclosure did arise, which it does not, this case comes before the High Court by way of a Circuit Appeal. Once a Circuit Appeal has been heard and determined and final orders made, the function of the High Court is over, its jurisdiction is spent and, save in very limited circumstances which do not arise in this case, the High Court has no review role. Any new issues or further applications which arise should be pursued before the Circuit Family Court, from which court there is, of course, appeal to this Court.