1

Ref: Master44

Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 3/5/07

(subject to editorial corrections)*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF NORTHREN IRELAND

------

FAMILY DIVISION

PROBATE & MATRIMONIAL

------

BETWEEN:

C

Petitioner;

and

C

Respondent.

------

Master Bell

[1] This matter was heard before me on 16 January 2007 and judgment

was reserved.

[2] The history of the marriage was as follows. The parties were married

on 16 October 1988. They were separated in December 2002 and a Decree Nisi

was granted on 14 March 2006. There are two children of the marriage; a son

born in August 1990 and a daughter born in July 1996.

[3] The petitioner wife is aged 42 and works as a classroom assistant. The

respondent husband is aged 45 and works as an executive for a multinational

company.

[4] At the hearing the petitioner gave oral evidence and, during that

evidence, adopted her affidavit sworn on 16 May 2006 for the purpose of

these proceedings. During his oral evidence, the respondent adopted his

affidavit sworn on 5 October 2006. In addition to the oral evidence I also had

the benefit of submissions by Miss O’Grady on behalf of the petitioner and

Miss McBride on behalf of the respondent.

2

[5] The assets held by the parties are as follows:

(i) A property in Lisburn (A). The petitioner currently lives in this

property. It is valued at £175,000.00. It has a mortgage of

£39,168.00. The equity in the property is approximately

£135,832.00.

(ii) A further property in Lisburn (B). This property is currently

occupied by the respondent. It is valued at £160,000.00. It has a

mortgage of £90,456.00 and an equity of approximately

£69,500.00.

(iii) A property at Shaw’s Road, Belfast (C). This property is valued

at £179,950.00, it has a mortgage of £12,271.00 and an

approximate equity of £167,000.00. I received submissions from

Counsel in respect of the status of this property and I will return

to it later in this ruling.

(iv) A further property in Belfast (D). The petitioner holds a one

third interest in this property which is valued at £190,000.00 in

total, her interest therefore amounting to £63,333.00.

(v) Respondent’s pension. This has a CETV of £229,640.00.

(vi) Petitioner’s pension. This has a CETV of £3779.00.

(vii) HSBC ISA with a value of £3,789.00.

(viii) BT Maxi ISA valued at £22,118.00.

(ix) BT ShareSave valued at £5,000.00.

(x) Singer and Freelander UK Fund valued at £1,004.00.

(xi) Legal and General policy number *****74 valued at £12,351.00.

(xii) Legal and General policy number *****64 valued at £13,895.00.

(xiii) Legal and General policy number *******61 valued at £13,638.00.

(xiv) Legal and General policy number ******23 valued entirely at

£7,148.00.

(xv) Legal and General policy number *******75 valued at £7,312.00.

(xvi) Respondent’s shares valued at £3,855.00.

(xvii) In addition there were two other policies – Legal and General

Policy number *****65 valued at £1,784.00 and Legal and

General ISA valued at £9,117.00. These two policies, it was

agreed between the parties, were always intended to be for the

parties’ children and I was asked by both parties to exclude

them from my judgment. I have therefore not taken them into

account.

The total value of these assets, excluding the two policies which I have

been asked not to take into account, was represented by both counsel

to be in the region of £758,000. For the reason which will appear later

in this ruling, I consider that the capital assets should be calculated as

amounting to approximately £525,775.

[6] Counsels’ submissions centred on three principal issues:

3

(i) Firstly, whether the court should order a clean break or should

make a periodical payments order.

(ii) Secondly, whether two of the properties should be classified as

inherited propert