M. O'M. (orse. O'C.) v B. O'C. (Nullity)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 April 1996
• Date: 18 April 1996
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 194 of 1994]
• Court: Supreme Court

Supreme Court

[S.C. No. 194 of 1994]

M. O'M. (orse. O'C.) v. B. O'C. (Nullity)

M. O'M. (otherwise O'C.)

Petitioner

and

B. O'C.

Respondent

Cases mentioned in this report:—

A.B. v. E.B. (Unreported, Supreme Court, October, 1995).

B. v. M. (Unreported, High Court, Barrington J., 27th March, 1987).

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

D.C. v. D.W. [1987] I.L.R.M. 63.

Hay v. O'Grady [1992] 1 I.R. 210; [1992] I.L.R.M. 447.

T. (K.) v. D. (T.) (Unreported, Supreme Court, 10th December, 1995).

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

O'D. v. O'D. (Unreported, High Court, O'Hanlon J., 5th August, 1992).

Family law - Marriage - Nullity - Consent - "Informed consent" - Wife unaware of husband's psychiatric problems prior to marriage - Whether consent to marriage was informed consent.

Matrimonial Petition.

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

By petition presented on the 20th June, 1990, the petitioner sought a decree that her marriage to the respondent was null and void. By order of the Master of the High Court made on the 10th April, 1991, it was directed that the following issues be tried:—

• 1. Were the petitioner and the respondent able to enter into and sustain a normal functional lifelong marital relationship with each other by reason of their respective states of mind, mental conditions, emotional developments and personalities at the date of the marriage?

• 2. Did the petitioner give a full, free and informed consent to the said marriage?

• 3. Did the respondent give a full, free and informed consent to the said marriage?

The matter was heard in the High Court (Kinlen J.) on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 18th and 22nd February, 1994. In a judgment delivered on the 5th May, 1994, it was held that the petitioner gave a full, free and informed consent to the marriage and the order of nullity was refused.

Notice of appeal was filed on the 3rd June, 1994. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court (Hamilton C.J., O'Flaherty and Blayney JJ.) on the 19th February, 1996.

The petitioner and the respondent were married in 1985 as wife and husband respectively. Two children were born to the marriage. There were tensions in the marriage from its outset, which grew progressively worse resulting in scenes of violence on the part of the respondent. The couple separated at Christmas, 1989, though at the date of the hearing of the petition in February, 1994, they were both still living in the family home.

The petitioner brought a petition in the High Court seeking a declaration that the marriage was null and void and of no legal effect, on the grounds that her husband lacked the capacity at the date of the marriage to enter and sustain a normal marriage relationship, and, that she had not given a free and informed consent to the marriage.

Prior to meeting the petitioner the respondent had been a priest. He found the life lonely and difficult and commenced a laicisation process in 1976 which was not completed until 1981. During the period of laicisation and up to 1982 the respondent attended a psychiatrist, Dr. O'S. Between 1976 and 1982 the respondent attended Dr. O'S. between three and six times each year, apart from 1978, when he saw him ten times. In evidence the petitioner said that she had not known that her husband had attended a psychiatrist for a protracted period during his laicisation, and that had she known she would not have married him. The High Court refused the petition, finding that the petitioner and respondent were able to enter into and sustain a normal functional lifelong marital relationship with each other. On the issue of consent the learned trial judge found that the petitioner had given a full, free and informed consent to the marriage.

The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, setting out five grounds on which it was contended that the decision of the High Court should be reversed. The first four grounds were all concerned with the issue of whether the petitioner and respondent were capable of entering and sustaining a normal marriage relationship with each other; it was contended that the learned trial judge failed to give due weight to psychiatric and medical evidence presented at the trial. The fifth ground of appeal was that the learned trial judge erred in law in holding that the wife gave a full, free and informed consent to the marriage in that there was uncontroverted evidence that the wife was unaware at the time of the marriage that the husband had attended a psychiatrist for several years prior to the marriage.

Held by the Supreme Court (Hamilton C.J., O'Flaherty and Blayney JJ.), in allowing the appeal and granting a declaration that the marriage was null and void, 1, that the Court could not reverse the trial judge's finding that the parties were capable of entering into and sustaining a normal marriage relationship, to support that conclusion.

Hay v. O'Grady [1992] 1 I.R. 210 applied.

2. That for a marriage to be valid it was necessary that the consent of each spouse, in addition to being freely given, should be an informed consent, a consent based upon adequate knowledge.

N. (Orse. K.) v. K. [1985] I.R. 733 applied.

3. That the test of whether or not a consent was an informed consent was a subjective one, that is, whether the spouse in marrying that particular man, could be said to have had adequate knowledge of every circumstance relevant to the decision she was making, so that her consent could truly be said to be an informed one.

4. Because the test was a subjective one, great weight must be attached to the petitioner's evidence that had she known that the respondent had attended a psychiatrist for...