THE HIGH COURT
		1997 No. 76M
IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL SEPARATION AND FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT, 1989 
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT, 1995, AS AMENDED BY THE FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT, 1996
BETWEEN
C. O'R
APPLICANT
AND
M. O'R
RESPONDENT
Judgment of Mr. Justice Diarmuid B. O'Donovan delivered the 19th day of September, 2000

	In these proceedings, the Applicant wife, who is 29 years old, seeks a decree of Judicial Separation together with ancillary orders.  It was accepted by both parties that they participated in a ceremony of marriage on the 9th day of July, 1993 at University Church, St. Stephen's Green in the city of Dublin.  However, initially, the Respondent husband, who is 36 years old, maintained that the said ceremony of marriage did not constitute a valid marriage and, on the 9th day of December 1997, he issued a petition for nullity.  The said petition came on for hearing before me on the 28th day of October, 1999 and, in the course of the hearing thereof, the Respondent withdrew the petition thereby acknowledging the validity of the said marriage.  At no stage did I doubt the validity thereof and I view the petition for nullity issued on behalf of the Respondent as an irresponsible effort on his part to escape his responsibilities.  In this regard, while I am not sure if it is the husband, himself, or the Solicitors acting on his behalf who are to blame, I am not convinced that the discovery made on behalf of the husband was as full and complete as it might have been and, certainly, there was inordinate delay in disclosing much of the documentation discovered; for example, details of the income generated by the containers located at the property which is jointly owned by the husband and by a man named E H do not appear to have been discovered until after the trial of the action commenced and neither, indeed, was documentation with regard to the husband's income provided before the hearing.  For these reasons, also, I feel that the husband's attitude to these proceedings was less than co-operative and, regretfully, I think that, to a certain extent, the failure on the part of Mr. O’R to make full discovery and, in particular, the delay in forwarding certain information with regard to his financial affairs was a deliberate effort on his part to mislead his wife with regard to his financial position.   However, if I do, I do not think that he was quite as remiss in the matter of making discovery as was suggested on behalf of the wife in the course of the hearing.  In that regard, I have to say that, on reviewing many of the complaints made on behalf of the wife with regard to the alleged failure of the husband to make proper discovery, I am persuaded that some of those complaints were grossly exaggerated and I can only assume that this was done in an effort to discredit the husband in my eyes.  In any event, I am not convinced that the wife, or her Solicitors, were as forthcoming as they might have been with regard to making discovery.  One way or the other, however, I am satisfied that, notwithstanding any discrepancies in the discovery made on behalf of the husband, it was not necessary to call several of the witnesses, who were called to give evidence on behalf of the wife because, in my view, the factual evidence given by those witnesses had already been furnished.  In particular, I am not convinced that the evidence of Mr. M. H, of Mr. G. H, of Mr. J. B. and of Ms. A.H. was necessary and I consider that it was a waste of time and money that those persons were called to give evidence.	
	There were two children of the said marriage, namely; H , who was born on the 8th day of November, 1994 and V, who was born on the 24th day of January 1996.  Both children are currently in the custody of the Applicant and the Respondent has liberal access to them.  In this connection, it would appear that the Applicant and the Respondent are happy that the current arrangements with regard to custody and access to both children are satisfactory and I have not been requested to make any orders with regard thereto.  For my part, I heard no evidence to suggest that either party was disregarding the better interests of either child and, accordingly, I am satisfied that, for the present, it is not necessary to make any order with regard to the custody of the children or the access to them by either parent.
	In the course of what transpired to be a very prolonged hearing before me, I heard evidence which satisfied me that unhappy differences arose between the Applicant and the Respondent as a result of which the marital relationship between them broke down and I am satisfied that they have not lived together as husband and wife since in or about the beginning of the month of February, 1997.  I am equally persuaded by the evidence which I heard that there is no prospect of a reconciliation between the parties and, accordingly, I am satisfied that it is appropriate that there should be a decree of Judicial Separation pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989.  In this regard, I am not convinced that any useful purpose would be served by my reviewing the allegations of wrongdoing which each party has made against the other or apportioning fault for the breakdown of the marriage between the Applicant and the Respondent.  I think it sufficient to note that, in the light of the evidence which I heard, it is my view that both parties were to blame; the wife because of her inappropriate behaviour towards the latter end of their life together and the husband because of his inability to appreciate that, to a limited extent, the wife's behaviour was attributable to illness involving post natal depression which, apparently, he did not understand and for which he was unable to make allowances.  However, whatever faults either party may have been guilty of, I am satisfied that the husband did not commit adultery until after he had ceased to live with the wife. 
	Since they have ceased to live together, the wife has lived with her two children in the family home and the husband currently resides with his new partner and their child in a self contained unit adjoining his parents home.  They are expecting a second child later this year.  As I have indicated, the hearing of these proceedings before me was prolonged and, indeed, somewhat acrimonious and, in so far as the wife was concerned, it was largely directed towards establishing that the assets and income of the husband were considerably greater than that which he had disclosed and to which he was prepared to admit, so that it was alleged on her behalf that he was in a position to make much greater provision for her support and for the support of their two children than he was prepared to concede.  On the husband's behalf, it was alleged that the wife's perception of the husband's worth and his capacity to make greater provision towards her support and that of her children was coloured by the fact that the husband's father is an extremely wealthy man and her belief, which it is suggested is totally without foundation, that he (the husband's father) had subsidised and would continue to subsidise the husband to the extent that he could contribute towards the support of the wife and his two children in a manner which the wife considered to be more appropriate than it currently is.  Indeed, in the course of her evidence, the wife suggested that the husband had received a proportion of a sum of £17 million which she alleged that her husband's father had received for the sale of his business in 1999.  In the light of the evidence which I heard, I am satisfied that there is no substance, whatsoever, to that suggestion.  While I propose to review some of the evidence which I heard with regard to the husband's assets and income (it is not necessary, I think, to review all of that evidence in detail) and, indeed, that of the wife, herself, and to review the evidence which I heard with regard to the wealth of the husband's father (M. O’R.) and its implications insofar as the husband's worth is concerned, I think it appropriate to comment at the outset that I was not persuaded that M O'R’s wealth is something which I should take into account when considering what contribution the husband should make towards the support of his wife and children.  It may well be that, in the fullness of time, the husband will succeed to a very  large proportion of his father's wealth and, if and when that happens, it may well be that the wife and children of the husband will be entitled to a greater contribution from him for their maintenance and support.  However, as I interpret the evidence of M O'R, while he is not short of affection for his son, he is certainly not disposed to settling large sums of money on him in the short term and neither is he disposed to supplement any shortfall in his son's income so that the husband can make better provision for the support of his wife and children.  Accordingly, when determining the reality of the husband's assets and income and the extent to which it will permit him to contribute towards the support of his wife and children, I am excluding from the equation the fact that the husband's father is a very wealthy man save that I am viewing all commercial transactions between father and son; whether negotiated directly or through the medium of companies controlled by them, with some suspicion; in the sense that I must satisfy myself that they are genuine commercial transactions and that they are not influenced by the relationship.  At the end of the day, however, the parties must appreciate that it is one of the realities of life that a couple living apart can never live as comfortably as they could if living together on the same income and that, inevitably, when a marriage breaks up, each former partner has to adjust to a lower living standard to what they had previously enjoyed and, perhaps, aspired to.  
	As I have indicated, the parties were married on the 9th July, 1993.  In that regard, the wife gave evidence that she had met the husband in the month of April, 1991 when he interviewed her for employment as a receptionist at a company owned by the husband's father, M O'R, and by which the husband was then employed as a salesman until the month of March 1998 when he became a dealer principal in that company.  The wife got the job; she commenced going out with the husband in or about the month of June, 1991 and she maintained, and I accept her evidence in that regard, that, during the period of their pre-marriage relationship, they followed a fairly extravagant lifestyle which included many meals out, many holidays (including foreign holidays and more especially holidays to a house in Spain owned by the husband's parents) and many weekends in hotels.  She asserted that this lifestyle was funded by the husband; mostly in cash, although she conceded that some of the foreign holidays were business trips; for example, there was one trip to Jamaica which was courtesy of a commercial firm but, even on that trip, she and the husband spent a few days in New York which were paid for by the husband.  The wife said that, when they were first married, they lived in Dublin City and did not move to the family until July of 1996.  She said that the husband paid the mortgage in respect of the family home, the outstanding amount of which is approximately £116,000 and still does and that, in addition, he still pays all utility bills; on top of which he now gives her £200 per week towards the support of their two children.  She said that, after their marriage, they still had a very good social life, that he bought her expensive presents and that they still went on foreign holidays and acquired a mobile home.  However, she said that her two pregnancies were very difficult and that she suffered from post-natal depression after both births but, more particularly after the birth of her second daughter, V, as a result of which she took an overdose and required hospitalisation.  She said that, after the birth of her children, she did not get on as well with her husband as she had previously and she said that, at that stage, he started to socialise without her as if he were still single.  However, although she was not working at the time, he was a very good provider and regularly gave her cash and lodged money to a joint bank account which they then had.
	Mrs. O'R gave evidence that her husband's father had substantial business interests involving a variety of companies and, so far as she was concerned, her husband; being the boss's son, oversaw everything that went on and was involved in all aspects of his father's businesses.  To be quite frank, I got a very different picture of the husband's involvement with his father's businesses when I heard his evidence, that of his father and that of several other persons employed by the father.  In this regard, Mrs. O'R was challenged about her perception of her husband's status within his father's group of companies and she agreed that the principal companies had managing directors and, in particular, it was put to her that her husband was a full time employee of the company by which he was employed, of whom a man named B.W was the managing director.  Her response was that, so far as she was concerned, her husband would have meetings with his father without Mr. W being in attendance and that he was involved generally with the budgets of the companies.  For the present, however, I will content myself by commenting that, in my view, Mrs. O'R's perception of the extent to which her husband was involved in the management and running of his father's several businesses is far from the reality, and, regretfully, that perception was implanted by both Mrs. O’R and by her legal advisors into the mind of Mr. S. B., a chartered accountant, who gave evidence on behalf of Mrs. O’R which was based on his understanding that Mr. O’R was running his fathers business which, in my view, was not the case and, therefore, I am afraid that I viewed Mr. B’s evidence with some reservations.   Mrs. O'R also painted a rather lurid picture of the amount of money which the husband was pocketing from his several activities.  In this regard, she said that, in addition to her employment as a receptionist, she had been paid a sum of £50 per week to collect rent from stall holders at a market which was held on each Sunday at the premises of Mr. O’R’s business and she said that she gave that money to her husband.  At the outset, she said that she would have collected about £1,500 per week but, eventually, the amount which she collected totalled about £4,000 per week.  In that regard, she said that she was accustomed to leaving the market about midday on a Sunday and, after she left, the market manager; a man named J. F. would collect whatever other rents were outstanding.  Clearly, this evidence suggested that Mr. O'R was in receipt of a rental income from the Sunday market which was not disclosed in his affidavit of means.  However, when he came to give evidence, Mr. O'R denied that he ever received any income from the Sunday market for his own benefit.  He said, and this was confirmed by Mr. F, that some of the monies received from the stall holders at the Sunday market was rent which was payable to the company on whose premises the market was held and that any monies which Mr. O'R received was passed on to that company.  Moreover, Mr. F. said that rent received from stall holders never amounted to as much as £4,000 a week, much less that such a sum would have been given to Mr. O'R to pass on to the owners of the premises.  In this regard, I think it very significant that, although Mrs. O'R gave evidence that she had advised her Solicitors that Mr. O'R had been in receipt of a rental income from the stall holders at the Sunday market, there is no mention of that income in the pre-trial correspondence and, in particular, Mr. O'R was never called upon to account for that income; the first mention of it being when Mrs. O'R was giving evidence in the witness box.  Moreover, she accepted that her husband had told her that a rent for the Sunday market was payable to the company on whose premises the market was held.  In those circumstances, I am not persuaded that Mr. O'R was ever in receipt of a rental income from the Sunday market.  Mrs. O'R said that she stopped collecting rents early in the year 1998.  In this regard, when they came to give evidence, Mr. O'R and Mr. F. gave very different evidence with regard to the collection of those rents and, indeed, the amount thereof and I will be commenting on their evidence and, indeed, contrasting it with that of Mrs. O'R later on in the course of this judgment.  She suggested that, in addition to that rent of up to £4,000 a week which he was receiving from the Sunday Market, Mr. O'R received two wage packets a week; one containing cash and the other a cheque, although she was not able to say how much money was involved, that he owned industrial units, which were a gift from his father before they were married (it subsequently transpired that those properties were owned by a company  of which the husband is a 99% shareholder and the wife owns 1% of the shares and were not a gift from Mr. O’R (Snr)),  that he also owns premises in partnership with a man named E. H. and that he sells jewellery, Rolex watches and Tefal pots and pans.  In fact, the whole tenor of Mrs. O'R's evidence was that her husband had a very substantial income; an income which was greatly in excess of that disclosed in the affidavits of means which he swore in these proceedings and an income which would permit him to make contributions towards her support and that of his children greatly in excess of that which he purported to be able to do.  While, for reasons which I will detail in due course, it is my view that the husband's income is, in fact, somewhat greater than that to which he was prepared to admit, or perhaps, it would be more correct to say that I think that the husband’s potential income, if he managed his affairs properly, would be greater than what it actually is, I think that the wife's perception of what the amount of his income is is largely a figment of her imagination; probably fuelled by the fact that his father is a very wealthy man.
	As I have already indicated, the wife currently resides with her two children at the family home which is valued by Mrs. O'R's valuer, Mr. B. O'S at between £530,000 and £585,000 and is jointly owned with the husband.  She is employed as a receptionist at a salary of £13,000 gross per annum which amounts to £958 net per month, and the two children attend a local school, in respect of which their father pays the fees, and, after school, they attend a crèche until their mother finishes work.  In this regard, Mrs. O’R gave evidence that, following her husbands departure from the family home, he restricted the amount of money available to the family; so much so that she was compelled to return to work in the month of June 1997 and she said that her current employment is located a few miles from the family home with the result that it is very convenient for her to drop the children at school on her way to work and to collect them from the crèche when she finishes work at about 3.30 or 4 o’clock p.m.  She added that, since the departure of her husband from the family home, the lifestyle of herself and of her children has reduced significantly because of lack of appropriate funding.
	Mrs. O'R said that she receives £138 per month in respect of children's allowance for the two children, that she has a car; a Nissan Almera, in respect of which her husband pays the insurance and she pays the tax (she said that her husband paid the tax up till the end of the year 1999).  She said that, after they were married, her car used to be changed every three months but the current model is a 1996 one.  She added that her husband pays the insurance in respect of the family home and its contents; the contents being valued at £20,000 together with two pictures; one of which was a present to Mr. O’R from his father, which she suggested were valued for between £60,000 and £80,000.  Mrs. O'R said that, during the nullity proceedings which had been taken by her husband, she had to get doctors to be witnesses on her behalf and that a Professor W from St. Vincent's Hospital charged her £10,000 to come to Court from Malaysia and that she paid that money out of the settlement of a personal injury claim which she then had and money which she had borrowed from her father. She said that her assets included jewellery worth approximately £40,000, a half-share in the proceeds of the mobile home which was sold for £12,300, 412 shares in the Canada Life Insurance Company; which I estimate are currently worth about £4,800 and £411 in an Irish Permanent account.  She said that, whatever the outcome of these proceedings, she was very reluctant to sell the family home because she had lived there with her children for some time, that she liked the house and that it was close to the children's school and to her place of work.  She added that she has not looked at alternative accommodation.  When asked about the adequacy of an offer which her husband had made to pay her £300 per month for the support of each child, she said that that sum was inadequate, if she had to pay crèche fees in respect of the children which the husband has been paying up to now.  I see no reason to doubt any of this evidence. 
	Under cross-examination, Mrs. O'R agreed that, in or about the time that she had separated from her husband, she had discussed with him moving house and that they have viewed some houses together and, in particular, a house nearby the family home in respect of which her husband had paid a booking deposit of £4,000 and she had filled in an appropriate form.  However, she said that, on reflection, that house was not for her because it was too quick after the separation to move house although she agreed that her husband had told her that he could not continue with the repayments in respect of the family home and at the same time maintain a home for himself.  	
	Under further cross-examination, Mrs. O'R was asked about the time before she was married and she agreed that, at that time, Mr. O'R treated her like a princess.  Insofar as foreign holidays were concerned, apart from the trip to Jamaica, which was sponsored, she said that they had gone on holidays to the Canaries and had a trip to his parent's house in Spain; in all, three foreign holidays before they were married and, after they were married, there was a trip to Palm Springs which was also sponsored.  There was also a weekend in London which it was suggested to Mrs. O'R was a gift from her father-in-law and she agreed that it might have been and a trip to New York for five to seven days and, during that period, Mrs. O'R agreed that her husband was very generous towards her.  In particular, she described the cars with which she was provided but she said that she did not know that all of those cars were company cars in respect of which her husband paid benefit in kind.  However, while that may  have been so, she said that her husband was keen for her to wear expensive clothes with designer labels but that, after the children arrived, his enthusiasm for expensive clothing seemed to wane.  In that regard, she would not agree that there was less money available at that stage and that, in any event, she, herself, had indicated that she did not have the same energy to go out shopping for clothes.  She did agree, however, that her husband was a very good father and that, after V was born, he had employed a nurse to help her for some time and that he took some responsibility for feeding her.	
	Mrs. O'R agreed that, since 1997, she had received a number of letters from her husband's solicitors pointing to her husband's deteriorating financial circumstances but, while she agreed that she was aware of what was being said, it was clear from her demeanour that she did not accept that his situation was as bad as his solicitors were maintaining.  She said that she was not aware that her husband's brother,  was involved with his father's companies in a managerial position.  However, she said that she was aware that her husband had been involved with Lloyds and had suffered financial losses in that regard.
	Under further cross-examination, Mrs. O'R denied that she gave the rent money which she collected at the Sunday market to Mr. F., rather than to her husband, and she insisted that she brought it home to her husband although she agreed that, in fact, her husband usually had a stall at the market which was somewhat inconsistent.  Indeed, she agreed that, during two Christmas periods, she, herself, ran a stall at the market selling teenage clothes and household goods so that she would not always have gone home at midday on a Sunday, as she had previously stated.  She said that she did not know whether or not any of the rent collected at the Sunday market was paid to the company who owned the premises but she was emphatic that, whatever rent she collected, she gave to her husband and not to J.F., although it was Mr. F. who paid her the £50 for collecting the rent. Then she said that, after she was separated from her husband, she left the rent in a drawer for Mr. F. and she said that she, herself, gave up working in the market because she wanted to see her children every second weekend; her husband seeing them on alternative weekends.
	Although Mrs. O'R protested that she knew very little about the company of which her husband is a 99% shareholder and she is a 1% shareholder of the company, she agreed that, over the years, she had signed draft accounts as a director of the company.  Indeed, she had done so after she had consulted her Solicitors with regard to these proceedings and had received advice from them with regard to her situation vis a vis the company.  Moreover, she agreed that she was aware that the company had a considerable amount of borrowings.  Accordingly, I am not convinced that Mrs. O’R and /or her Solicitors were as innocent about the reality of that company as she purported to be.  However, that is by the by.  As I have already indicated, the case which was made on behalf of Mrs. O’R was largely directed towards establishing that the assets and income of Mr. O’R were considerably greater than that to which he was prepared to admit whereas, for his part, Mr. O’R maintained; not only that his assets and income were no greater than that which he had disclosed but the fact of the matter is that he is almost at the end of his financial tether, in that, his current outgoings greatly exceed his income and his current borrowings preclude the likelihood that he can raise any further loans in the short term.  In this regard, Mr. O’R pointed to the fact that, as his wife had chosen to call representatives from several of the financial institutions to which he is currently indebted to give evidence on her behalf with the result that those representatives are now fully aware of the extent of his borrowings, it is unlikely that they could be persuaded to grant him any further accommodation.  Accordingly, while he accepted that he had a legal and moral obligation to provide for the support of his wife and children in accordance with his means, Mr. O’R maintained that, in order to do so, it was essential that he liquidate some of his assets.  In this regard, my initial understanding of 
Mr. O’R’s proposals was that the family home, should be sold, that out of the nett proceeds of sale, the current mortgage thereon should be discharged, an alternative house purchased for his wife and their two children and that he be provided with a sum of £60,000 to enable him to put a deposit on living quarters for himself, his current partner and their children.  In that event, as I understood the position, Mr. O’R envisaged that it would not be necessary for him to liquidate any other assets.  However, as the case progressed, it appeared to me that Counsel for Mr. O’R envisaged that to enable him to discharge his current liabilities and to make proper provision for his wife and their two children, it was necessary to sell all properties of which he was currently possessed while, in the course of his own evidence, although  he seemed to accept that, in order to regularise his current financial situation, it would be necessary for him to dispose of some of his assets, he was some what ambivalent as to which of his assets ought to be disposed of although his preference appeared to be for the sale of the family home.  Indeed, as I pointed out in the course of the hearing, it seemed to me that one of the principal issues which I had to decide was whether or not the family home should be sold, as I believed to be the wish of the husband, or transferred into the name of the wife, as she clearly believed to be her entitlement.
	There was little or no controversy about the current financial position of Mrs. O’R to which I have already adverted i.e. a nett monthly income of a little under £2,000 comprising £958.00 from her employment as a Receptionist, £138.00 in respect of children's allowances and £800.00 from her husband towards the support of their two children.   In addition, she has the use of a car, in respect of which her husband pays the insurance, and her husband discharges the current mortgage repayments in respect of the family home and all insurance on the home and its contents, their children's school fees’ and the fees’ payable to the crèche which the children attend after school, all utility bills in respect of the family home, VHI premiums and all medical and dental bills for the children.  In fact, I think it fair to comment that, at present, given the amount of her own income and in the light of his current indebtedness, Mrs. O’R and her two children are extremely well provided for by
 Mr. O’R.  
	While, as I have indicated, there was little controversy about the amount of Mrs. O’R’s current income, there was considerable dispute about the amount of Mr. O’R’s income and the current value of his several assets.  In this regard, as I have already pointed out, it seemed to me that Mrs. O’R’s perception of the extent of her husband’s worth, which I think is misconceived, is coloured by two factors, namely;  firstly the fact that her father-in-law is an extremely wealthy man and, secondly, her erroneous belief that her husband was a very important cog in his father’s affairs and was involved in all its aspects.  In that connection, in the light of the evidence which I heard from M O’R, which I accept without reservation, I am satisfied that Mr. O’R was and is an ordinary employee in his fathers business and never was any more than that.  In particular, although I accept that he was a named director of a number of the companies which comprised his father’s business, I am satisfied that Mr. O’R never had any responsibility or, indeed, involvement in the overall management or organisation of his father’s business and, notwithstanding that directorship, did not even receive director’s fees.  Initially, he was employed by one of his father’s companies;  in an administrative capacity, then he was employed by another of his father’s companies, doing office work in connection with the auctions and, latterly, he was successively employed by another of his father’s companies, as a car salesman and dealer principal.  In the month of January of this year, he became Manager of  another of his father’s companies that was renamed after the sale by his father of the business, of which the father and his wife were proprietors, in the month of April 1999.
	In this regard, while it is true that Mr. O'R left it very late in the day to disclose the fact, I'm satisfied that his current salary is £55,000 per annum together with a discretionary bonus of £15,000 per annum.  However, while that bonus is notionally a discretionary one, I have little doubt but that, in the current economic climate in this country and, particularly, in the light of the phenomenal upsurge in business which is being experienced by the motor trade, the reality is that Mr. O'R will qualify for this bonus in its entirety.  Accordingly, I'm satisfied that his current gross income from his employment in the motor trade is £70,000 per annum which, in the light of the evidence which I heard, represents a net monthly income of £3,795.  In this regard, Mr. S. B., the chartered accountant, who gave evidence on behalf of Mrs. O'R, gave it as his opinion that Mr. O'R is being paid a salary which is considerably less than that to which he is entitled, given the responsible nature of his employment and, more particularly his responsible position, within his fathers business organisation.  However, as I interpreted Mr. B’s evidence, that view was based on an understanding, given to him by Mrs. O'R and her legal advisors, that Mr. O'R was running his fathers business and, as I have already indicated, I am satisfied that that is not and never was the case.  The implication of Mr. B’s evidence; as I understood it, was that Mr. O'R's salary was kept at an artificially low level for some reason, which Mr. B never really elaborated upon, associated with the fact that, essentially his father was his employer.  However, apart from the fact that Mr. B did not produce any evidence to satisfy me that persons in similar employment to that of Mr. O'R were in receipt of significantly higher salaries, I felt that the whole basis of his evidence was his belief that Mr. O'R was a much bigger cog in his father's business affairs than is the reality of the situation and, accordingly, I do not consider that Mr. O'R's current salary is any less than it ought to be.  Moreover, any reservations that I might have had in that regard were allayed by the evidence by Mr. G. K., a chartered accountant, who was also called to give evidence on behalf of Mrs. O’R and who confirmed that Mr. O’R’s wage package was appropriate for the job that he is doing.  I might also add in this regard that I was satisfied by the evidence which I heard that Mr. O’R has “no perks” from his employment other than that he is provided with a company car in respect of which he has to pay benefit in kind thereby increasing his tax liability.  In particular, notwithstanding the suggestion in that regard on behalf of his wife, I am satisfied that Mr. O’R does not have his holidays paid for by his employers.
	I have already referred to a market which is held each Sunday at the premises of one of M. O’R’s businesses.  This market was started by Mr. O'R, at the instigation of Mr. J.F., who, at the time, had considerable experience in organising such markets, in or about the months of September/October 1989.  At that time, the business of  Mr. O’R was carried on from Monday to Saturday inclusive but their premises were vacant on a Sunday.  Mr. F., was then running an outdoor Sunday market close by and, apparently, the owners of the premises at which that market was being carried on were threatening to increase the rent payable by Mr. F., to a figure which he felt that he could not afford and, therefore, he conceived the idea of transferring the market to the premises of M. O’R, an idea which he put to Mr. O'R, who, in turn, discussed it with his father (the proprietor of those premises), who agreed that it appeared to be a good idea as it was likely to generate additional income for his business and that, therefore, Mr. O'R should go along with the idea.  This he did and the Sunday Markets commenced towards the end of the year 1989 at an initial rent of £400 per week, which was agreed between Mr. O'R and Mr. F., payable to the business of M. O’R.  Initially, the venture was not a success.  Indeed, so unsuccessful was it that Mr. F. not afford to pay the weekly rent which he had agreed to pay and, apparently, at one stage, he suggested to Mr. O'R that he would close down the market.  However, Mr. O'R had faith in the ultimate success of the venture and prevailed upon Mr. F. not to  close down the market; at the same time, agreeing on behalf of the owner of the premises to accept whatever rent Mr. F. was in a position to pay.  As it happened, Mr. O'R's faith in the ultimate success of the venture was fully justified because it was established by the evidence which I heard that, over the years, the market has gone from strength to strength; so much so that, for the last couple of years, the owners of the premises  have netted in excess of £60,000 per annum, which has been paid by Mr. F. in respect of rent for the use of their premises for the Sunday Market.  In this connection, as I have already indicated, while the import of some of the evidence which Mrs. O'R gave to me was that Mr. O'R was in receipt of a rental income from the Sunday market for his own use and, indeed, that, at times, that income amounted to as much as £4,000 a week, I was persuaded by his evidence, by the evidence of Mr. F. and by the evidence which I received with regard to the amount of rent from the Sunday market which was credited to the accounts of the owners of the premises that that was not so.  I accept that the system followed by Mr. F. and by Mr. O'R with regard to the payment of rent to the owners for the use of their premises for the Sunday market was that rent was collected from the several stall holders, who comprised the market, by or on behalf of Mr. F.  In this regard, I do not doubt Mrs. O'R's evidence that, from time to time, Mr. F. paid her to collect that rent and, apparently, at other times, he paid other persons, including Mrs. O'R's friend, A. McG. to collect rent from the stall holders.  Moreover, I accept that some of the rent which was collected from the stall holders was passed on by Mr. F. to Mr. O'R and I do not doubt that, on many many occasions Mrs. O'R gave money to her husband which had been collected from stall holders in respect of rent but, if she did, I'm equally satisfied that that was money which had been given to her by Mr. F. to give to her husband and that it was not intended for Mr. O'R's personal use, but rather to be passed on by him to the owners, as I am satisfied that it was.  Accordingly, while it may well be that Mrs. O'R believed that her husband was pocketing some of the rent which was paid by the Sunday Market stall holders, I am satisfied that the fact of the matter is that he received no income from that source for his own use.  On the other hand, I have no doubt but that Mr. O'R earned some money; as it were "on the side" arising out of several enterprises of a commercial nature in which he was involved with Mr. F. whereby they bought goods between them and sold them; more often than not, but not always, at a profit to the Sunday market stall holders and, that for a short period, Mr. O'R, himself, had a stall at the Sunday Market.  Moreover, I am satisfied that Mr. O'R made a profit out of arranging loans of money for Mr. F. because, apparently, his credit worthiness was not sufficient to enable him to raise loans in his own name.  In this regard, however, I am not sure that Mr. F., himself, appreciated that Mr. O'R was taking a profit for arranging for those loans.  That as it may be, however, I am persuaded that, whatever money Mr. O'R earned as a result  of doing business deals with Mr. F. or as a result of arranging for loans of money for Mr. F. or as a result of his own trading on the Sunday Market, those sources of income have now dried up and, indeed, have not been availed of by Mr. O'R in recent times for the reasons; firstly, that Mr. F. no longer requires loans and, secondly, that Mr. O'R no longer has time to be involved in commercial activities associated with the Sunday Market because he now has access to his two daughters on a Sunday and he devotes his spare time to looking after them.
	As I have already adverted to, there is a company of which Mr. O'R is a 99% shareholder and Mrs. O'R a 1% shareholder and of which both Mr. O'R and Mrs. O'R are the sole directors.  In the course of her evidence, Mrs. O'R suggested that this company had been a wedding present to herself and her husband from her husband’s parents but I was satisfied by the evidence which I heard from Mr. O'R and from his father, M. O'R, that, while M. O'R was involved in negotiating the purchase of one of two industrial units which comprise its assets, the company was not a wedding present to Mr. and Mrs. O'R from Mr. O'R's parents.  If it had been, it seems to me that it would have been a very odd present to give to newlyweds, in that, as I understand the commercial reality of the company, it is a long term investment which may or may not ultimately produce a worthwhile return.  In other words, it is a bit like a pension scheme and not the sort of thing that one would expect parents to give to an offspring by way of a wedding present.  In any event, Mr. O'R told me and I accept that his parents gave him a wedding present of a Wedgwood China Dinner Service.  In this regard, the Company was incorporated in or about the year 1993 and two industrial units were purchased in its name; those purchases being financed by Bank borrowings.  Since then, the units have been rented to one of M. O’R’s companies and that rent comprises its only income. In other words, the Company is nothing more than a property rental company.  Moreover, the company has never made an annual profit because the entire income realised from renting the industrial units has been applied towards repaying the Bank loans.  However, I was told by Mr. G. O'S, who is the auditor of the Company, and I accept that, in order to avoid the Company having to pay excessive corporation taxes, dividends were voted out of the Company each year which were more or less equivalent to a notional profit generated by the Company.  However, as there was no liquid funds to pay those dividends, they were designated to be directors’ loans which, currently, are credited to the directors and, in this regard, as I interpreted the evidence which I heard from Mr. G. O'S and from Mr. S. B., the current indebtedness of the company to Mr. O'R in respect of unpaid dividends is approximately £22,000.  Apart from the suggestion by Mrs. O'R that the Company was a wedding present from Mr. O'R's parents, it seems to me to be implicit from the manner in which several witnesses were questioned by Counsel for Mrs. O'R that it was also being suggested on her behalf that, in the circumstance that the purchase of one of the industrial units, which comprise the assets of  the Company, was negotiated by Mr. O'R's father and, more particularly, in the circumstance that the two industrial units are rented by the Company, of which Mr. O'R is a 99% shareholder and one of the directors, to a Company, of which Mr. O'R's father, M. O'R, is the proprietor and Mr. O'R, himself, is one of the directors and that the amount of the rent is negotiated, in affect, between father and son, there is no commercial reality to the arrangement.  However, Mr. B. O'S, an Estate Agent, who was called to give evidence on behalf of Mrs. O'R gave it as his opinion that a fair market rent for the two units would be of the order of £31,386/£32,386 annually but that, in fact, he would not quibble with an annual rent of £25,000 which he believed was then the annual rent payable in respect of the two units.  The fact of the matter, however, is that, after Mr. O'S  had given evidence, I learnt that the current annual rent payable in respect of those two units is £33,666 and, therefore, in the light of Mr. O'S's views and not withstanding the relationship between the parties who, apparently, negotiate the annual rent, I'm not persuaded that it is anything but a genuine commercial transaction.  Mr. O'S also expressed the view that, although he considered that they were in poor condition, the capital value of each of the industrial units belonging to the Company was £165,000, giving a cumulative total value of £330,000.  On the other hand, there was some controversy about the net value to M. O'R if the Company should it be disposed of.  In that regard, based on the property value of £330,000 suggested by Mr. O'S, Mr. S. B. was of the view that the net value of Mr. O'R's shareholding was £110,000, on top of which Mr. O'R was entitled to approximately £22,000 in respect of unpaid dividends and, therefore, if it was disposed of, Mr. O'R would net approximately £132,000.  On the other hand, Mr. G. O'S  was of the view that, if the Company was liquidated in the morning; allowing that Mr. O'R would have to pay capital gains tax, the net valuation would be around £60,000.  While I find it difficult to articulate reasons, I am inclined to prefer Mr. O'S's valuation because the impression that I got from Mr. O'R, while he was giving evidence, was that his view of the net valuation of the Company would be more akin to that of Mr. O'S than it was to that of Mr. O'S.  Certainly, Mr. O'R did not envisage that, if he disposed of the Company, he would end up with much less than £100,000.  In this regard, in the light of Mr. O'S's view that the two industrial units in question were in poor condition and Mr. O'R's own concession that the Company has "probably hit its peak" because the units are now so old, it seems to me, that, if any of Mr. O'R's assets have to be disposed of to enable him to make proper provision of his wife and children, that Company should be the first to go.
		Apart from the foregoing, I heard evidence which satisfied me that Mr. O’R is involved in a partnership with a man named E. H. and, over the years, that partnership has acquired property comprising an industrial unit.  This unit comprises three different sections which were acquired by the partnership at three different periods of times over the last three years or so.  The first portion, which cost the partnership £460,000, was acquired in the month of October 1996 and it is of some significance that that section was purchased by the partnership from a company, which is a company which was then owned by Mr. O’R’s father, M. O’R and it is also of some significance that, although the contract price for the said portions was stated to be £510,000, in fact, as I have indicated, the partnership only paid £460,000 for it and, indeed, after stamp duty and the costs of sale were deducted, Mr. O’R’s fathers Company only received £416,000.  In those circumstances, it seemed to me that I was being invited by Mrs. O’R’s legal team to conclude that the transaction was not a genuine one.  However, given that it was common case that that piece of property is now worth multiples of the £460,000 which the partnership is alleged to have paid for it, although, admittedly, there was controversy about what, precisely, it is now worth, I cannot, for the life of me, see what advantage there would be to Mrs. O’R where I to conclude that there was some irregularity about that transaction.  As it happens, however, I have no doubt at all but that the partnership of Mr. O’R and Mr. H. did purchase that piece of property for  £460,000 and that, for what were good commercial reasons at the time, Mr. O’R’s fathers Company forewent the balance of £50,000 payable under the contract for sale and discharged the amount payable in respect of stamp-duty and the costs of sale.  Moreover, although the documentation which was produced with regard to the transaction is rather confusing, I am satisfied that, in the month of August 1998, the partnership purchased another section of the industrial, unit which they now own for £225,000 and, in or about the month of July 1999, the third section of that unit was purchased by the partnership for £425,000.  I am also satisfied that the partnership had to borrow heavily to complete those purchases and that they are currently indebted in the sum of £1,200,000 to the Equity Bank arising from such borrowing.  Furthermore, I am satisfied that the entire unit is now rented by the partnership to a Company, of which, of course, M. O’R is the proprietor, for a sum of £110,000 per annum; a rent which is absorbed by mortgage repayments and expenses so that neither Mr. O’R or Mr. H. is in receipt of any portion thereof.  
		In the course of the hearing before me, there was considerable dispute with regard; firstly, to the current market value and, secondly, to the current  letting value of the industrial unit  which belongs to the partnership of Mr. O’R and E. H..  On the one hand, Mr. B O’S, an estate agent, who gave evidence on behalf of Mrs. O’R,  gave it as his opinion that the current value of the unit on the open market is £3,250,000 and that it’s Annual Letting Value is £230,000 or, at least £200,000 and, in his view, those valuations were conservative, as they were originally made in the month of December 1999, and, given current trends in the property market, they are certainly no less valuable now.  On the other hand, Mr. L. J McC, a chartered surveyor and a fellow of the Irish auctioneers and valuers institute, who gave evidence on behalf of Mr. O’R, gave it as his opinion that the current market value of that unit is only £2,550,000 and that it’s annual letting value is £150,000.  It is unnecessary, I think, for the purpose of this judgement, to review in detail the evidence given by these two valuers.  It is sufficient to note that, as I interpreted their evidence, the essential reasons for their differing views was that, as the buildings on the unit had been constructed over thirty years ago, it was Mr. McC’s view that they now had a limited life span; so much so that they would shortly require to be demolished and replaced by state of the art buildings and, therefore, the property would not be as attractive to a would-be purchaser as it might be where those buildings of more recent origin.  In any event, Mr. McC was of the view that it was inappropriate for Mr. O’S to base his view, as he had done, on the value of the property by comparing it with the value of similar properties in a nearby industrial estate because, as Mr. McC said, the two estates are not comparable, in that, the nearby industrial estate is probably one of the most upmarket industrial estates in the West of the City of Dublin whereas the industrial development with which this case is concerned  falls far short of that model.  In this regard, not only did Mr. O’S totally refute Mr. McC’s criticism of the basis upon which he had arrived at his valuations, but he confirmed that the buildings in the unit had been totally renovated so that they could no longer be described as 1970’s buildings and he produced  recent photographs of the buildings which seemed to me to belie Mr. McC’s criticism of them.  Mr. McC was also of the view that the access to the industrial unit  was very poor and that that fact also reduced it’s value.  However, while Mr. O’S agreed that the access was not good, he thought that it could easily be enhanced and, when challenged by Counsel for Mr. O’R that it might be difficult to obtain planning permission to enlarge that access, he expressed the view that such permission could not reasonably be withheld by the planning authorities.  Insofar as there were differences of opinion between Mr. O’S and Mr. McC, I preferred the views of Mr. O’S because, as I say, I thought that the photographs produced by Mr. O’S of the buildings on the industrial unit did not reflect Mr. McC’s criticism of them and it seems to me that any refusal on the part of the planning authority to enlarge the access to that unit would be unreasonable and would be overturned.  Moreover, while it is Mr. McC’s word against that of Mr. O’S that it is inappropriate for Mr. O’S to base his valuation of the industrial unit on the values of industrial units at the nearby industrial estate, given the current upsurge in property values in this country, I am inclined to think that, in this instance, the difference in location is not a significant factor.  Accordingly, it is my view that the probabilities are that the current market value of the industrial unit owned by the partnership of Mr. O’R and E. H. is probably of the order of £3,250,000 and  that the current letting value of the unit is probably not less than £200,000 per annum.  In that regard, I note the evidence of M. O’R; the proprietor of the Company, who are presently the tenants of the industrial unit, that he could not afford to pay more than the rent £110,0000 per annum which he is presently paying and, indeed, his assertion that the property is not worth more than that to him.  However, in the light of Mr. O’S’s evidence with regard to the current letting value of the property, I have to conclude that the rent presently being paid has been influenced by the relationship between landlord and tenant.  Accordingly, it seems to me that, if the present tenants cannot be persuaded to pay what Mr. O’S considers to be a proper market rent, Mr. O’R and Mr. H. must look elsewhere for a tenant and, in the light of Mr. O’S’s evidence, I am confident that they will find a tenant who will be prepared to pay what Mr. O’S believes to be the proper market rent for the property.
		In addition to the foregoing, there is located on the property of the partnership of Mr. O’R and E. H. at that industrial unit twenty-eight containers which, since the year 1996 have been let to a variety of tenants and are currently so let.  Mr. B O’S has estimated that these containers are currently valued for £700 each but Mr. O’R disputes that figure; suggesting that an individual valuation of £400 would be more appropriate.  Indeed, Mr. O’R gave evidence that these containers are a “thorn in the side”, in that, over the years, he has had to expend something of the order of £9,500 in having necessary repairs executed to them and, given that he was advised; I think it was by Mr. O’S, that the unit would be easier to let, were the containers removed, he would be happy to be rid of them.  In this regard, I was unhappy that the accounts prepared on  behalf of the partnership of Mr. O’R and E. H. accurately reflected the income derived from letting these containers over the years and a Mr. S. B. confirmed my doubts in that regard.  However I heard evidence from a Mr. J. F., who described himself as chief of security for M. O’R that, since the industrial unit had been acquired by the partnership of Mr. O’R and E. H., he (Mr. F.) had been responsible for collecting rent from the tenants of those containers and he produced lists setting out the amount of the rents which he had collected over the years; identifying the amount of rent which had been paid in cash and that which had been paid by cheque.  I am satisfied that those lists accurately reflect the amount of rent which was generated by those containers over the years and that it rose from a figure of approximately £13,500 for the year ending September 1996 to a figure of nearly £25,000 for the year ending September 1999.  At the end of the day, Mr. O’R accepted those figures although they were not disclosed in any of the Affidavits of means sworn on his behalf and, to be quite frank, I have grave reservations, that he would ever have admitted to them were it not for the evidence of Mr. F.  On the other hand, I accept; firstly, that he, personally, is only entitled to 50% of the rental income from the containers and, secondly, that it was his responsibility to pay to Mr. F. bonuses and wages to which Mr. F. was entitled out of the rental income; Mr. H. being responsible for general maintenance of the containers although, apparently,  it was Mr. O’R who discharged the £9,500 which was incurred in having the containers repaired.  In the course of this evidence, Mr. O’R conceded that, since himself and Mr. H. acquired those containers, he has pocketed an average of £48 per week over and above all expenses associated  with the containers and the income which he lodged to a partnership account in the Irish Permanent Building Society.  While I have no way of knowing it for a fact, I suspect that Mr. O’R kept a lot more for himself out of the rental income from the said containers and, for the future, I have little doubt but that the rental income from those containers will provide Mr. O’R with an additional income; how much, I cannot say, but certainly not less than the £48 per week which he is currently pocketing and, probably, considerably more than that.  
	In addition to the foregoing, Mr. And Mrs. O’R are entitled to the proceeds of sale of a mobile home which, although I accept that it was paid for by Mr. O’R, seems to me to have been jointly owned by them.  Those proceeds are currently in the possession of Mrs. O’R’s Solicitors and amount to the sum of £11,300 together with accrued interest.  Furthermore, Mr. O’R has 8,800 shares in Dunloe House Group PLC which, apparently, are value for £2,684 and 473 shares in First Active which, apparently, are worth £804.  He has also invested £25,000 in a business expansion scheme which will mature in the year 2003 and he has taken out a variety of life assurance policies; the most significant of which appear to me to be the Standard Life Endowment Policy number F21807621 which, currently, has an encashment value of £20,000 and two Canada Life Insurance Policies numbered 7054163P and 7061150A under which the sums insured are respectively £122,753 and £220,500.  Mr O’R also joined the Irish Life Pension scheme in the year 1991 but, in my view, the current value of his pension entitlement is insignificant.  Neither, in my view has he any significant bank accounts.
	Apart from the foregoing notwithstanding Mrs. O’R’s obvious suspicions in that regard, I was not persuaded that Mr. O’R had any hidden assets or any other sources of income, which were not identified.
	Leaving aside for the present the question of the costs of these proceedings and of the nullity proceedings which had been taken by Mr. O’R and excluding the mortgage charged on the family home and mortgages charged on the several other properties to which Mr. O’R is entitled, either jointly or otherwise, he stated in evidence that his current liabilities are close to £250,000.  These liabilities allegedly comprise; (a) a debt of £52,420 to AIB PLC in respect of monies advanced by the bank to enable Mr. O’R to discharge a debt which he had incurred to Lloyds Banking PLC, (b) £18,420 due to First Active PLC in respect of monies advanced by that Bank to enable Mr. O’R to invest in the business expansion scheme to which I have already referred, (c) a further sum of £18,000 to First Active PLC which was incurred by Mr. O’R to enable him to discharge various liabilities which he has incurred to the Woodchester Bank and to pay for a car for his wife, (d) £75,000 to AIB Financing and Leasing PLC  in respect of monies borrowed to discharge his tax liabilities, (e) £20,000 to the Equity Bank in respect of a loan taken out to reduce an unauthorised overdraft and (f) sums of £47,076 and £15,300 respectively owed to his father M. O’R, and his sister S O’R in respect of loans which Mr. O’R obtained from them from time to time.  In the light of the evidence which I heard from Mr. O’R, himself, from witnesses called on behalf of several of the institutions to which he is allegedly indebted and from Mr. M. O’R, I am satisfied that Mr. O’R does, indeed, have these personal liabilities which will have to be satisfied, sooner or later.  In this regard, I have reservations about the propriety of the manner in which he has rolled over his indebtedness during the last couple of years; in particular, it seems to me that, so far as some of his current indebtedness is concerned, he was less than prudent in arranging for short term-loans rather than extending them over a longer period of time and , given the level of his indebtedness, while I appreciate that it was instrumental in saving him tax, I am not at all convinced that he was wise to invest in the business expansion scheme in which he invested in 1998.  However, notwithstanding those reservations, I do not believe, as was suggested on behalf of Mrs. O’R, that Mr. O’R deliberately set out to create liabilities with a view to painting a false picture of his financial position so that he might avoid making provision for his wife and children which is within his means.  In my view, the liabilities to which I have referred are real and, as I say, will have to be discharged, sooner or later.  However, with all due respect to them, while I accept that Mr. O’R has an obligation to repay the loans which he obtained from his father, M. O’R, and from his sister, S O’R, I do not think that there is any urgency about repaying those loans.
	Insofar as the costs of these proceedings and of the nullity proceedings taken by Mr. O’R are concerned, there is no doubt but that Mr. O’R will have to discharge the bulk of those costs.  In that regard, I have been furnished with bills of costs in respect of both sets of proceedings drawn on behalf of both Mr. O’R and Mrs. O’R and, given that Mrs. O’R’s costs of the nullity proceedings appear to have been taxed by a Taxing Master, I think that it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment with regard to the amount of those costs.  However, so far as the costs of  these proceedings are concerned, I think that it is of significance that the Bill of Costs drawn on behalf of Mrs. O’R is almost two and a half times as large as that drawn on behalf of Mr. O’R and while, of course, it remains to be seen how a Taxing Master will view the Bill of Costs drawn on behalf of Mrs. O’R, I have to say that, on its face value, it seems to me to be grossly excessive.  That as it may be, however, in the light of the several Bills of Costs which have been submitted to me, it is clear that, at the end of the day, Mr. O’R will have a liability for costs which will certainly be not less than £300,000 and probably a lot more.  
	The legal principles, arising from current legislation and judicial dicta on the topic, with regard to ancillary orders which ought to be made in association with a decree of judicial seperation are, as I understand them, very straightforward.  Essentially, when making such orders, the Court is required to have regard: in an appropriate case, to the welfare of any children of the marriage, and in every case, to the relative circumstances of the husband and the wife to the end that such ancillary orders, when implemented, will enable the husband and the wife to follow a lifestyle which is appropriate, having regard to their respective means, their respective prospects and the lifestyle which they followed when they lived together as husband and wife and, as I understand the position, insofar as providing for an appropriate lifestyle is concerned, particular regard must be had for the respective ages of the husband and the wife and the length of time for which they were married.  As I have already indicated, as the parties hereto appear to be satisfied with the arrangements which currently exist with regard to the custody of the two children of their marriage and the access which either parent has to those children and I have no reason to believe that either child is disadvantaged by those arrangements, it is not necessary for me to make any order in that regard.  However, insofar as the welfare and the better interests of the children are concerned, it is of concern to me that proper provision is made for their support and maintenance and that their home is appropriate: not only for their needs, but also having regard to the lifestyle to which they had become accustomed, subject only to the ongoing capacity of their parents to maintain that lifestyle.  Moreover, in so far as the parties, themselves, are concerned, it seems to me that such ancillary orders as I choose to make in association with the decree of Judicial seperation which I have already granted must be tailored to reflect the contribution which each of the parties made to the marriage, the current income and worth of each of the parties and their current responsibilities.  In particular, while my primary concern must be that of the welfare of the children and wife of the marriage, I cannot ignore the fact that, since the breakdown of the marriage, the husband has formed another relationship as a result of which he has fathered another child and is expecting a further child from that relationship in the near future because, of course, he also has obligations with regard to the care , maintenance and support of his new family and their interests cannot be ignored.  
	As the hearing of these proceedings progressed, the parties may recall that I intervened on a number of occasions indicating the view that the resolution of their financial difficulties (“Difficulties” in the sense of the necessity to devise a scheme apportioning the income and means of the parties in such a way that their needs and the needs of their children are best provided for) demanded the sale of the family home, not withstanding Mrs. O’R’s protestations in that regard.  However, having reviewed all the evidence which I heard, I am not now convinced that it is essential for the purpose of doing justice between the parties, which, of course, is my ultimate aim, that the family home be sold at the present time.  In this regard, I would like to emphasise that, in coming to this conclusion, I am influenced; more by what I perceive to be the better interests of the children of the marriage than I am by the views or wishes of their parents.  In this regard, I am aware of my own knowledge how traumatic and disruptive it can be for a child to have to leave surroundings with which he or she has been familiar for most of their lives: surroundings which, as in this case, are located in close proximity to their school and surroundings which, in all probability, are located in close proximity to their friends and to go somewhere else, where, in effect, they have to start life all over again.  Accordingly, it seems to me that, when there is a breakdown of a marriage and there are children of that marriage, the better interests of those children demands that they should not have to leave the home which they have known all their lives unless the financial position of their parents requires that the family home be sold.  In this case, as I have indicated, I am not satisfied that it is essential, in order to enable Mr. and Mrs. O’R to continue to live their respective lives in relative comfort, that the family home,  be sold and, accordingly, I do not purpose to so direct.  On the other hand, given that the marriage of the husband and the wife only lasted the three and a half years, that, in my view, both of them contributed to it’s breakdown, that, while, undoubtedly, Mrs. O’R made a major contribution to the marriage, while it subsisted, there does not appear to have been any financial input on her part and that both parties are still relatively young, I think that it would be a grave injustice to Mr. O’R were I to direct that the family home be transferred to Mrs. O’R.  On the other hand, given the state of the current relationship between the parties, I recognise that it would be highly undesirable were Mr. O’R to continue to have access to the family home, not withstanding that he continues be a part owner thereof.  Accordingly, it seems to me that the appropriate order I should make with regard the family home is an order pursuant Section 10 (1) (a) (i) of the Family Law Act 1995 conferring on Mrs. O’R the right to occupy the family home to the exclusion of Mr. O’R until such time as their children have completed their full time education and, thereafter, the parties may make such arrangements with regard to the occupation and/or disposal of the family home which they may, by mutual agreement, see fit or , in the absence of such agreement, as the Court may determine.  Moreover, with the exception of the two pictures, which were referred to by the parties in the course of the hearing, which I direct are to be handed over to Mr. O’R, I direct that the current contents of the family home are to remain in situ for the use of Mrs. O’R and her two children.  Moreover, I direct that Mr O’R shall continue to pay appropriate insurance in respect of the family home and it’s contents.  
	Insofar as the mortgage on the family home; the outstanding balance of which is currently £116,000, is concerned, I think that it is preferable that it be discharged as soon as possible for two reasons, namely: firstly, that I think it undesirable that those premises should remain encumbered while in the exclusive occupation of Mrs. O’R and her two children and, secondly, when he is relieved of the responsibility of making payments on foot of that mortgage, Mr. O’R will have greater liquidity to enable him to discharge his other financial obligations.  In order to be in a position to discharge the mortgage on the family home, it seems to me that it will be necessary for Mr. O’R to liquidate some of his assets and, in that regard, as I have already indicated, it seems to me that the obvious asset to dispose of the Company of which Mr. O’R is a 99% shareholder and Mrs O’R a 1% shareholder.  In the light of the evidence which I heard, it would appear that the disposal of that company could nett for Mr. O’R: possibly as much as £132,000 and most likely, in excess of £100,000, which would go a very long way towards discharging the mortgage on the family home and, accordingly, I will make an order under the provisions on Subject 10 (1) (b) of the Family Law Act 1995 directing the sale of the Company and that the proceeds thereof are to be applied towards discharging the mortgage currently in being in respect of the family home.
	Insofar as his contribution towards the maintenance and support of the two children of his marriage is concerned, Mr. O’R is currently paying to Mrs. O’R a sum of £200 per week, on top of which discharges their school fees, the fees payable to the crèche which they attend after school, all utility bills in respect of the family home and VHI premiums and all medical and dental bills in respect of the children.  He maintains that, given the amount  of Mrs. O’R’s current income, his contribution towards her maintenance and support and towards the  maintenance and support of their two children is excessive and he has suggested that a more reasonable contribution would be a sum of £300  per month in respect of each child on top of  which he would discharge their school fees, all VHI premiums and all their medical and dental bills.  For her part, Mrs. O’R protests that £300 per month in respect of each child would not be adequate; particularly, if she were required to discharge the crèche fees payable in respect of the children which are currently being paid by her husband.  In this regard, given that the two children are now respectively nearly six and five years of age, I would question the necessity of they’re having to attend a crèche between the time that their school day finishes and the time that their mother is available to look after them.  In this regard, while I heard no evidence with regard to the cost of the crèche which the children are presently attending, again, I have some personal knowledge of the approximate cost of such facilities and I am aware that they are relatively expensive.  Accordingly, as the children are no longer infants and, presumably, are as independent as one can expect of a five or a six year old, it occurs to me that it should be possible for Mrs. O’R to employ someone to collect them from school and to look after them for a few hours until she, herself, comes home from work.  In that event, I would have thought that the cost involved would be considerably less than the cost of putting the children in a crèche.  However, there would, undoubtedly, be some cost involved and, lest, perhaps, it might put an undue strain on Mrs. O’R’s resources, given that this expense does not appear to be taken into consideration by Mr. O’R, when he suggested that an appropriate contribution towards the maintenance and support of each child would be £300 per month, I think that regard should be had for it in assessing what the amount of that contribution should be.  
	I think that it is fair to say that estimating the cost of looking after a five or six year old is the equivalent of the saying “how long is a piece of string”.  That as it may be, however, in the light of the evidence available to me and taking into account the matters to which I have already referred, it seems to me that the appropriate contribution which Mr. O’R should make towards the maintenance and support of each of the two children of his marriage should be £350 per month and, in addition to that, he must accept responsibility for the payment of their school fees,  for the payment of VHI premiums in respect of them and for the discharge of all medical and dental fees which are incurred in respect of them.  In my view, such a contribution would be reasonable and is well within Mr. O’R’s means and, accordingly, I would make an order in that behalf pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 (a) (i) of the Family Law Act 1995.
	In addition to the foregoing, Mr. O’R shall provide Mrs. O’R with a new car of a similar type to that which she currently drives at intervals of every four years and shall be responsible for taxing and insuring that car. 
	In making the foregoing orders, I am not at all unmindful of Mr. O’R’s responsibilities to his new family and, in particular, the necessity to provide appropriate accommodation for them and neither have I overlooked that he has substantial liabilities, including the liability for the costs of these proceedings and the unsuccessful nullity proceedings taken by him, which will have to be discharged sooner or later.  In that regard, given that Mr. O’R , himself, conceded that they were “ a thorn in the side” and that it was Mr. O’S’s view that the industrial unit which he owns with E. H. would be easier to let were they removed, I think that, with the view; firstly, to creating more capital with which to discharge his liabilities and, secondly, to facilitate a letting of the industrial unit at a greater rent, the 28 containers, which are currently located at the unit should be sold.  In that regard, there was controversy between Mr. O’R and Mr. O’S with regard to the value of these containers: Mr. O’S  suggesting that they were worth £700 each or nearly £20,000 in total where as Mr. O’R thought that they were only worth about £400 each, that is a little over £11,000 in total.  The reality is probably somewhere between those two extremes; and I doubt if I would be doing an injustice to anyone were I to suggest that each of the containers is likely to attract a price of £500 so that the total value of the 28 of them would be £14,000 of which Mr. O’R is entitled to 50% i.e. £7,000.  Of course I realise that Mr. H may not be happy to sell these containers and, in that event, I may have to reconsider what must be done.
	Apart from the foregoing, Mr. O’R would appear to have ready access to the following capital monies; namely £2,684 from the sale of the 8,800 shares in Dunloe House Group Plc which he possesses, £804 from the sale of his shares in First Active, £11,300 plus  accrued interest being the proceeds of the mobile home which he owned with his wife, £20,000 being the encashment of Standard Life Endowment Policy number F21807621 and £12,000 which he conceded in evidence was due to him out of a joint partnership account which he has with Mr. H.  Accordingly, it would appear, that, with relative ease Mr. O’R can raise something in the region of £53,000 which  would go a very long way towards discharging his liabilities; both to First Active Plc and to the Equity Bank.  With regard to the balance of his liabilities, I note and sympathise with the evidence of Mr. S. B. that, given the significant extent of Mr. O’R’s current borrowings and his demonstrable capacity to renegotiate loans; which he did shortly before the hearing of these proceedings, the probabilities are that he can refinance his short-term borrowings thereby making more money available for day to day expenses and, in that regard, it is also relevant to note that, when the mortgage on the family home is discharged, as I have directed, Mr. O’R’s monthly outgoings will be reduced by approximately £1,200.  On top of that, he will have the benefit of an additional income generated by an increased rent from the industrial unit when he either renegotiates the current rent with his father:, or, alternatively, finds another tenant, who is prepared to pay a market rent for those premises.  
	When Mr. O’R has followed the plan which I have drawn up for rationalising his finances, he will find that he is in receipt of a disposable income which is considerably in excess of his current disposable income.  Accordingly, not only will he have little difficulty meeting the demands of day to day living for himself and his new family, of funding his obligations to Mrs. O’R and the two children of their marriage and discharging his current liabilities (renegotiated over a longer period of time, as I have suggested), but there should also be funds available to enable him to take on fresh liabilities and, in that context, it seems to me that if, as I believe, the market value of the industrial unit  which Mr. O’R owns in partnership with Mr. H is valued for more than £3,000,000 and the current borrowing on that property is only £1,200,000, it should be possible to raise a further mortgage on that property which would provide Mr. O’R with a the capital sum to enable him; firstly, to put down a deposit on appropriate accommodation for himself and his new family and, secondly, to discharge his liability for the costs.  In that event, it would not be necessary for him: as, apparently, he has been contemplating, to sell his interest in that Industrial Unit.  In that regard, while I am no expert, it seems to me that, in the current economic climate and, in particular, given that property values are steadily on the increase, Mr. OR’s financial well-being will, in the long-term, be better served by retaining his interest in that Industrial Unit rather than by disposing of it.  At the end of the day, however, it is a matter entirely for Mr. O’R, himself, as to how he manages his financial affairs.  Insofar as I am concerned, I am satisfied that he has sufficient resources to enable him, without hardship to himself, or to his new family, to make the provision for Mrs. O’R and for the two children of his marriage (including discharging the mortgage which currently exists on the family home) which I have directed.  I have indicated the manner in which I think that he can resolve the balance of his financial problems but, apart from the steps which I have directed that he must take with regard to providing for Mrs. O’R and his two children, it is up to himself as to how he deals with the other matters although, as I say, I am satisfied that he has the financial capacity to do so.
	In the circumstance that the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. O’R only lasted for three and a half years and that, in any event, the provision which Mr. O’R currently has in place with regard to a pension is of little value at present, I do not think that this is an appropriate case in which to make a pension adjustment order under Section 12 or Section 13 of the Family Law Act 1995.  In those circumstances, however, neither do I think it appropriate, at present, to make an order under Section 14 of the Family Law Act 1995 extinguishing the succession act rights of either party on the death of the other.  It may well be, however, that it will be appropriate to consider the making of such an order at sometime in the future.  Insofar the two Canada Life Insurance's policies respectively numbered 7054163P and 7061150A are concerned, pursuant to Section 11 (1) (b) (iii) of the Family Law Act 1995  I direct that Mr. O’R is to continue to pay the premiums payable under the terms of those two policies.
	Insofar as the question of costs is concerned, I think that Mrs. O’R  has already been allowed her costs in the nullity proceedings against her husband but, if I am in error in that regard, I hereby confirm that Mrs. O’R is entitled to all costs incurred by her in association with the nullity proceedings, including all reserved costs; such costs to be paid by her husband, when taxed or ascertained.  Insofar as the costs of these proceedings are concerned, I think that the hearing before me was unnecessarily prolonged arising, firstly, from the fact that a number of witnesses were called to give evidence who, in my view, were not necessary and, secondly, that a considerable amount of time was wasted in trying to establish that Mr. O’R played a leading role in the conduct  of his father’s businesses and that he was underpaid for what he did.  In my view, there was no justification for the amount of time that was spent on these issues and I think that Mrs. O’R, herself, was largely responsible.  Accordingly, although the hearing before me lasted nine days, I propose to allow Mrs. O’R her costs of the proceedings based on a six day hearing.  In that regard, I will make no order with regard to the costs of any motions or applications of which no order for costs was made by the judge who entertained such motions or applications and insofar as any applications in respect of which costs were reserved by the Court are concerned, I would like to hear further argument by the parties in relation to those costs.  Needless to say, in the absence of agreement between the parties, all costs are to be taxed. 

Dated this 19th day of  September, 2000

Signed:____________________________________
The Honourable Mr. Justice Diarmuid O’Donovan