C. O'K. v W.P.
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1985 |
| Date | 01 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | [1983 No. |
| Court | High Court |
High Court
Cases mentioned in this report:—
K. v. McC. [1982] I.L.R.M. 277.
Scott v. Sebright (1885) 12 P.D. 21.
Husband and wife - Nullity - Duress - Wife's emotional bondage to husband at date of marriage amounting to duress - Subjective test applied - Petition granted.
Petition for Annulment of Marriage.
The petition was issued on 25th March, 1983, and the facts, as set out in the petition were inter alia as follows:—
"1. That your petitioner went through the cermony of marriage with the respondent on the 23rd day of November, 1974, in the church of Our Mother of Divine Grace in Dublin.
2. At the time of the said marriage your petitioner and the respondent were and still are citizens of Ireland.
3. Your petitioner and the respondent are respectively domiciled in Ireland and were at the date of the marriage domiciled in Ireland.
4. No child or children have been born of the said marriage.
5. Your petitioner works as a wages clerk for a firm by the name of K. Ltd., in the City of Dublin and the respondent is an employee of Dublin Corporation.
6. Your petitioner and the respondent have lived apart since March, 1981.
7. Your petitioner did not fully and properly consent to the marriage with the respondent in that your petitioner did not consent to the marriage of her own free will but because of extreme force, pressure and duress imposed on your petitioner by the respondent.
8. The respondent did not fully and properly consent to the aforesaid marriage in that at the date of the said marriage the respondent did not fully understand the nature of the contract of marriage, and did not understand the nature of the duties and responsibilities which marriage creates.
9. The petitioner was throughout her courtship and the engagement to the respondent subjected to constant pressure and persistant entreaties from the respondent that your petitioner should continue to see and eventually marry the respondent.
10. Even when the relationship was terminated the respondent used contact your petitioner. If your petitioner had not been subjected to inexorable pressure from the respondent she would not have gone through a cermony of marriage to the respondent.
11. There is no connivance or collusion between the petitioner and the respondent in any way whatsoever.
Your petitioner therefore humbly prays this honourable court will be pleased to decree that the said marriage is null and void and your petitioner may have such further and other relief as to the court may seem meet including the costs of these proceedings."
By an order of the Master on the 16th June, 1983, on foot of the above petition and verifying affidavit a citation was issued.
An answer was filed by the respondent on 3rd February, 1984. The answer was set out as follows:—
"1. That the respondent admits the averments contained in paragraphs 1 to 6 inclusive herein.
2. The respondent alleges that the petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
UR v or
...not the applicable test is subjective or objective. In particular, she referred to the decision of McMahon J. in the case of C O'K v. WP [1985] IR 279. The appellant cites the following passage from the judgment of McMahon J. in that case: “[T]he subjective test must be applied when conside......