F. v F

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1990
• Date: 01 January 1990
• Docket Number: [1987 No. 3M]
• Court: High Court

F. v. F.

F.

Petitioner

and

F.

Respondent

[1987 No. 3M]

High Court

Husband and wife - Marriage - Nullity - Capacity to marry - Consent - Husband's repudiation of marriage - Wife's petition - Homosexuality of respondent - Mental health of respondent - Whether respondent capable of entering into and sustaining normal inter-personal relationship which marriage requires - Whether concealment of homosexuality by respondent and his emotional binding of petitioner to him vitiated petitioner's consent.

Evidence - Hearsay evidence to be disregarded - Whether hearsay evidence of psychiatrist to be accepted as statements made to him in the course of his profession.

The petitioner and respondent were married in 1986. They had met in 1982 and although it occurred to the petitioner on several occasions that the respondent had homosexual tendencies, he reassured her that this was not so. The petitioner lived abroad from 1983 on and the courtship between the parties was conducted mainly by letter and telephone except for holidays. The parties achieved full sexual intercourse for the first time in 1985 and this lulled any lingering suspicions which the petitioner might have had. Before the wedding the respondent wrote to the petitioner and indicated that there had been male encounters but that he was not a homosexual. When she telephoned him about this he said that, contrary to the letter, there had only been one sexual encounter when he was twenty, and that it was not sexual but a tenderness. The petitioner believed him. After the honeymoon the parties stayed for ten days with M. and P.J., in whose house the respondent had lived prior to the marriage. This was a homosexual establishment. A few weeks later the respondent repudiated the marriage.

Some of the evidence given by the petitioner and the witnesses was hearsay. M. and P.J. gave evidence of the promiscuous homosexual lifestyle of the respondent.

The consultant psychiatrist gave evidence of his view that the respondent was quite severely psychologically disturbed; had difficulty dealing with truth and reality; had a compulsive need of sexual gratification of a promiscuous and homosexual nature; lacked emotional capacity and would be unable to maintain a steady relationship with anyone. He had been able to conceal the reality from the petitioner because she was blinded by her choice of him, because he misled her and because the courtship was at a distance. The marriage lasted five weeks.

Held by Barron J., in granting the petition, 1, that the purported marriage was null and void because the respondent was unable to maintain the life-long relationship required of marriage.

• N.F.McD. v. W.O.R. (Unreported, High Court, Hamilton J., 26th January, 1984) distinguished.R.S.J. v. J.S.J.[1982] I.L.R.M. 263; D. v. C.[1984] I.L.R.M. 173; D.C. v. D.W.[1987] I.L.R.M. 58 and M.E. v. A.E.[1987] I.R. 147 approved.

2. That the respondent's so-called revelations of a one-time homosexual tendency and total denials of such a disposition had the effect and were intended to have the effect of binding the petitioner to him emotionally so that the petitioner's consent was not a true consent and she would not have married the respondent had she known even part of his true nature.

Per Barron J. That hearsay evidence by the petitioner and witnesses should be disregarded and, insofar as the consultant psychiatrist related matters told to him by others in the absence of the respondent, they would be accepted as statements made to him in the course of his profession in relation to a matter authorised by the respondent and not as the truth.

Cases mentioned in this report:—

D. v. C. [1984] I.L.R.M. 173.

D.C. v. D.W. [1987] I.L.R.M. 58.

McM. v. McM. [1936] I.R. 177.

M.E. v. A.E. [1987] I.R. 147.

M.F. McD. v. W.O.R. (Unreported, High Court, Hamilton J., 26th January, 1984).

R.S.J. v. J.S.J. [1982] I.L.R.M. 263.

Matrimonial Petition.

The petition was issued on the 7th January, 1987, and sought a decree of nullity on the grounds of the respondent's lack of capacity to form or sustain a normal marital relationship and on the grounds that the petitioner did not fully and properly consent to the marriage. The respondent filed his answer on the 11th February, 1987, in which he agreed with the petitioner regarding his lack of capacity. In his affidavit, filed on the 1st May, 1987, he stated that the facts in the petition were true so far as they were within his own knowledge and where not within his own knowledge, he believed them to be true.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. His solicitor told the court that he had no instructions and was granted liberty to come off record.

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

The petition was heard by the High Court (Barron J.) on the 9th and 10th February, 1988.

Cur. adv. vult.

Barron J.

The parties were married in Dublin on 25th July, 1986. The petitioner was then aged 27 and the respondent 29. They met in the year 1982 through their mutual interest in music. The petitioner was attracted to the respondent whom she found to be quiet and shy and also polite and above all, kind. She enjoyed his company and as their relationship progressed she came to regard him as her best friend. Nevertheless when the respondent proposed matrimony in February, 1983...