Anna Rohan was instructed by the Applicant Wife in a Financial Remedy matter.

The Husband had claimed a 50% share of the Family Home and the Wife’s pension throughout proceedings. On the morning of the Final Hearing the Husband conceded a lower percentage was likely but the matter progressed to a contested hearing for the Judge to decide on an appropriate share. Throughout proceedings the Husband had failed to answer questions and had given limited and incomplete disclosure.

Miss Rohan represented the Wife throughout the proceedings and was able to obtain cost orders against the Husband on two previous occasions.

At the Final Hearing Miss Rohan cross-examined the Husband extensively, focussing on inconsistencies between his oral and written evidence and his disclosure and highlighting evidence that indicated that his income was higher that he had stated to the court.

The Judge stated that he found the Husband’s evidence to be “completely and utterly unreliable” and that during cross-examination “the Husband sought to prevaricate and not answer questions properly asked of him”. The Judge then decided that the Husband’s disclosure was “materially deficient” and that he was persuaded to draw inferences in the case.

As a result, the court ordered that the Husband was to receive the equivalent of a 13% share of the equity in the Family Home by way of a deferred charge with a trigger event of the youngest child (aged 14) finishing his first degree. In addition to this, the Judge ordered the Husband to pay nominal spousal maintenance to the Wife until the youngest child finishes his first degree.