A.C. (Orse. J.) v P.J.

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 23 February 1995
• Date: 23 February 1995
• Docket Number: [1993 No. 20M]
• Court: High Court

High Court

[1993 No. 20M]

A.C. v. P.J. (Nullity: consent)

A.C. (otherwise J.)

Petitioner

and

P.J.

Respondent

Cases mentioned in this report:—

N. (orse. K.) v. K. [1985] I.R. 733; [1986] I.L.R.M. 75.

D.B. (orse. O'R.) v. N.O'R. [1991] 1 I.R. 289; [1991] I.L.R.M. 160.

Family law - Husband and wife - Nullity - Consent - Capacity - Duress - Pregnancy - Whether consent to marriage was a true consent - Domination by husband - Petitioner not advised on alternatives to marriage - Whether petitioner's consent to marriage was a full and free exericse of an independent will.

Petition.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are fully set out in the judgment of Barron J., infra.

The petition was lodged in the Central Office of the High Court on the 8th April, 1993. Liberty to issue a citation was granted by the Master of the High Court on the 13th May, 1993. On the 4th May, 1994, on motion to the Master of the High Court, the following questions were referred by him for trial by a judge of the High Court:—

• 1. Whether or not the petitioner did give any true or valid consent to the said marriage.

• 2. Whether or not the petitioner was at the time of her marriage and prior thereto acting under duress imposed upon her by her immediate family and/or the respondent and/or circumstances as a result of her pre-marital pregnancy that she was unable to exercise a free will at that time.

• 3. Whether or not the petitioner was at the time of her marriage and prior thereto acting under duress imposed upon her by virtue of the respondent's domination of her such that she was unable to exercise a free will at that time.

• 4. Whether or not because of the mental capacity and/or mental health and/or state of mind of the petitioner at the date of marriage and immediately prior thereto the petitioner was unable to give any true or valid consent to the said marriage.

• 5. Whether or not the petitioner did lawfully consent to a marriage wherein the respondent would by reason of his mental disorder and/or nature and/or temperament be incapable of performing or implementing a fundamental purpose or term of the contract of marriage.

• 6. Whether or not the respondent did fully and properly consent to the marriage aforesaid in that at the date of the said marriage the said respondent did not understand the nature of the contract of marriage and did not understand the nature and the duties and responsibilities which marriage creates.

• 7. Whether or not at the date of the said marriage and prior thereto the respondent lacked capacity to form and/or maintain a lasting marital relationship with the petitioner.

• 8. Whether or not because of mental capacity and/or the state of mind of the respondent at the date of the marriage the respondent was unable to understand the nature, purpose and consequence of the marriage contract.

• 9. Whether or not because of the mental capacity and/or mental health and/or state of mind of the petitioner at the date of...