J. v J

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barrington
• Judgment Date: 11 January 1982
• Neutral Citation: 1982 WJSC-HC 1098
• Court: High Court
• Date: 11 January 1982

1982 WJSC-HC 1098

THE HIGH COURT

Barrington

J. v. J.

MATRIMONIAL

BETWEEN:

R. S. J.

Petitioner

and

J. S. J.

Respondent

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barringtondelivered the 11th day of January, 1982.

2 This is a petition for nullity of marriage brought by the husband against the wife.

3 The parties went through a ceremony of marriage on the 21st day of June, 1978. After the marriage the parties lived together on the husband's farm in County Tipperary.

4 At the time of the marriage the husband was aged 47 years and the wife was some twelve years his junior.

5 The husband was a farmer and farmed some 120 acres in Tipperary. He was in reasonably comfortable circumstances. He had six sisters some of whom were married and living in the area and all of whom appeared to have been devoted to him. His mother, who was also devoted to him, died some six months before the wedding.

6 There was a history of psychiatric illness in the family. The father,who had died in 1974, had spent many years in mental hospitals and the petitioner only brother had also been admitted to a psychiatric hospital for treatment.

7 The wife was a nurse by training. She came of respectable middle class people and had been very successful in her own career. At the time of the marriage she was a clinical tutor at the Ardkeen Hospital in Waterford and was described by Doctor Lennon, the eminent psychiatrist who gave evidence in the case, as being at the top of herprofession.

8 On the surface the marriage appeared an appropriate one and I am satisfied that the wife was totally committed to it and did her best to make it a success. Yet both parties agreed that the marriage was a failure and, after some eight months, on the 26th February, 1979, the wife left the matrimonial home and has not since returned. There were a number of rows during the marriage; the husband committed a number of minor assaults on the wife, on one occasion using enough force to hurt and frighten her. But the basic reason for the wife leaving the matrimonial home was that she became convinced that the husband did not want her there.

9 By a Master's Order dated the 4th February, 1981 two specific issues were raised for the decision of the Court in this case. These are asfollows

10 2 "1. Whether the petitioner was induced to be a party to the ceremony of marriage through extreme pressure, fear duress and undueinfluence imposed by the respondent.

11 2. Whether by reason of his mental capacity and state of mind at the time of the said marriage, the petitioner was able to understand the nature, purpose and consequences of the marriage contract".

12 In the course of the debate at the hearing a third issue was raised and by consent, a third question was added for the consideration of the Court. This question was as follows -

"Was the petitioner suffering from such disease of the mind on the 21st day of June, 1978 that he was unable to maintain and sustain a normal relationship with the respondent or any children there might be of the proposed marriage and was he, thereby, incapable of contracting a valid marriage with the respondent".

13 This third question was agreed to by Mr. Barron, on behalf of the respondent, without prejudice to his submission that, under our law, an illness which makes a man unable to sustain a normal marital relationship as distinct from an illness which prevents a man understanding the nature of the contract of marriage, is not a good ground for declaring a marriage void.

14 I propose to deal with the first two questions together first, leaving the third and most difficult question, till last.

15 But before dealing with the first two questions I should say something of the impression made upon me by the parties. As, a witness, the petitioner struck me as being in many ways inadequate and unreliable. This inadequacy may be, in part, the result of the illness of which he complains. I deal with this illness later. The respondent by comparison struck me as an impressive person aid a reliable witness. In those numerous matters where she and the'petitioner are the only witnesses and where their version of events is in conflict I have no hesitation in preferring her version to his.

16 The parties met in September 1976 and thereafter they went out together on a fairly regular basis meeting about twice per week.

17 In February 1977 the petitioner suffered some form of panic attack. In evidence he described it as a nervous breakdown. He had palpitations anc he feared his heart would stop. He was admitted to hospital in Carrick-on-Suir where he had an E.C.G. The respondent received a phone call from hospital and went to see him. He informed her that on the previous night he had been drinking whiskey and took sleeping pills. She told him that he had done something very foolish and which could cause palpitations. Apparently the result of the E.C.G, was satisfactory and she was satisfied, from enquiries, that there was nothing wrong vith his

18 Sometime in March or April 1977 the parties agreed not to see each other for a period of two months. They had however a previous arrangement to go to the nurses dance together and the respondent was in some doubt as to whether this arrangement stood or did not. I am satisfied that the petitioner telephoned her and confirmed the arrangement for the dance. The respondent was delighted and the parties resumed theirfriendship.

19 In June 1977 the petitioner complained of being depressed and complained of being dissatisfied with the treatment he was getting from his doctor. The respondent did not think that he was suffering from depression in the medical sense. She was not a psychiatric nurse but she had seen patients suffering from depression and the petitioner did not present to her as a person suffering from depression. Nevertheless she was a practical woman and considered that if the petitioner felt he needed medical help he should look for the best advice available. She accordingly recommended him to see Doctor Seamus Lennon, who is the senior psychiatrist at the Ardkeen Hospital in Waterford, and who was known to her by repute. She accordingly set up an appointment for him with Doctor Lennon and Doctor Lennon in fact saw the petitioner on four or five occasions.

20 On another occasion the petitioner complained of suffering fromcold sweats at night. It crossed the respondent's mind that he might be suffering from brucellosis and she advised the petitioner to see a Doctor Crowley who had made a special study of brucellosis. The petitioner, however, had not got brucellosis. The respondent may have drawn the conclusion that the petitioner was a bit of a hypochondriac certainly she was not at any stage seriously worried about hishealth.

21 The parties friendship continued and the respondent recalled an incident which took place one evening in September 1977 outside the old mill in Carrick-on-Suir. The parties were in a motor car and the petitioner said "do you think we have a future together?". To this the respondent answered "Ohyes". The respondent took this to be a proposal of marriage and what transpired subsequently appears to confirm her interpretation. The petitioner raised with her the question of whether he should continue dry stock farming or whether he should go into dairying. She suggested that she might keep fowl but he did not want that. She also suggested keeping pigs. Her basic point however was that she was accustomed to being busy and would like to have plenty of work to do after marriage. The parties then discussed how many children they would like to have and he said not more than two.

22 Shortly afterwards the respondent was invited to the petitioner's home and introduced to his mother and sisters.

23 The petitioner claims to have no recollection of this incident outside the old mill in Carrick. He says that he did not propose to the respondent; that she proposed to him. I am satisfied however that the incident took place as the respondent has described it and the fact that the petitioner claims to have no recollection of it is one of the many matters which cause me to have reservations about the petitioner'sevidence.

24 The evening on which the respondent was introduced to the petitioner's mother and sisters was an enjoyable one for them. In particular the respondent formed a favourable impression of her prospective sisters-in-law and they of her. In my opinion both of them were right. The petitioner however appears to have spent most of the evening looking at television and his sisters thought this somewhat odd.

25 Subsequently the parties became formally engaged and their engagement was announced in the Irish Independent on the 19th November, 1977. The petitioner claims that he was very ill at this time and in this respect asks the Court to give weight to the fact that when, subsequently, he was going through his cheques and came across a cheque with which he purchased the engagement ring he could not initially remember what the cheque as for.

26 However there is no doubt that he knew he was getting engaged. Some days before the engagement his mother had been able to tell his sisters that the engagement was going to take place. Moreover he does not deny the fact of the engagement. Indeed he says that he got engaged in the hope that it would give him a "lift". I understood him to mean by this that he hoped the engagement would raise his spirits and make his neighbours think more highly of him. He says however that he had no intention of getting married.

27 Subsequent to the engagement the parties had a lovers quarrel and the petitioner suggested calling off the engagement. The respondent took off her engagement ring and put it on the mantle piece. I am satisfied that she made a remark to the effect that they had just put a notice in the papers announcing their engagement and asking were they now to put in another notice saying that the...