W v C

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Jordan
• Judgment Date: 17 October 2024
• Neutral Citation: [2024] IEHC 684
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: RECORD NO. 2021 77 M

In the Matter of the Family Law Act 1995, As Amended

Between:

W

Applicant

and

C

Respondent

and

The Attorney General

Notice Party

[2024] IEHC 684

RECORD NO. 2021 77 M

THE HIGH COURT

FAMILY LAW

Declaratory relief – Annulment – Recognition – Applicant seeking declaratory relief – Whether a decree of nullity is entitled to recognition

Facts: The applicant, in proceedings issued on 20 July 2021, claimed a declaration pursuant to s. 29(1)(d) of the Family Law Act 1995 that the annulment in respect of the marriage of the applicant and the respondent granted by the Superior Court of Arizona on 2 March 2021 is entitled to recognition in Ireland’s jurisdiction. The notice party, the Attorney General, identified four issues of systemic importance which arose in the proceedings: (1) What is the correct legal test to apply in determining whether a decree of nullity granted in another jurisdiction, outside the European Union, should be entitled to recognition in the State? (2) If the test for recognition is that such a decree is entitled to recognition if either party to the application is domiciled in the country where the application is brought at the date of the commencement thereof, is such domicile to be determined by the application of Irish law, or the application of the law of the country where the decree is granted? (3) If the test for recognition is that such a decree is entitled to recognition if either party to the application is domiciled in the country where the application is brought at the date of the commencement thereof, if that country has in matters of nullity two or more systems applying in different territorial units, must one of the parties be so domiciled in the territorial unit where the decree is granted? (4) In determining whether such a decree is entitled to recognition, is a court entitled to have regard to the fact that information relevant to the nullity application was not disclosed to the court determining the application, and was therefore not considered by the court in granting the application, in particular where the application was on consent of both parties?

Held by the High Court (Jordan J) that: (1) a decree of nullity is entitled to recognition if either party to the application is domiciled in the country where the decree is granted at the date of the commencement of the proceedings; (2) the issue of where a person is domiciled at the time of commencement of proceedings in a foreign country falls to be determined in accordance with Irish law; (3) both the common law, in regard to pre 1986 divorces, and statute law, in regard to post 1986 divorces, treat each territorial unit in a federal state as a separate country for the purposes of domicile, and recognition of a foreign decree of divorce; and (4) if a judgment is pronounced by a foreign Court in respect of a matter within its jurisdiction, then the Court in which recognition is sought should not investigate the propriety of the proceedings in the foreign Court unless they offend against the High Court’s views of substantial justice - if there has been collusion between the parties and the full facts have not been placed before the foreign court then those are matters which are relevant to the question of whether the requirements of substantial justice have been satisfied. Jordan J held that the applicant had satisfied all of the requisite proofs and in particular had satisfied the court in relation to the respondent having had a domicile of choice in Arizona on 21 December of 2020 when the nullity proceedings were commenced. Jordan J held that the applicant was entitled to the declaration sought.

Jordan J granted the declaration as sought.

Declaration granted.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Jordan delivered on the 17 ^th day of October 2024.

1 . The applicant and the respondent were married in August 2020 at a Church in Arklow, County Wicklow, Ireland. The Attorney General was joined as a notice party in these proceedings in view of the issues raised. The respondent though properly served and clearly aware of these proceedings has decided not to participate.

2 . There are no children of the marriage. Shortly after the marriage there was a complete and irreversible breakdown in the relationship. The applicant's evidence, which the Court accepts, was that he decided during the first week of December of 2020 that he did not want to be part of the relationship. This was in view of the difficulties which had emerged between he and the respondent. Around 08 or 09 December 2020, the respondent packed up her belongings in the rented accommodation in which the couple lived and she returned to Colorado where her mother lived – to the home she had grown up in.

3 . The applicant filed a petition for annulment in the Superior Court of Arizona on 21 December 2020. On 02 March 2021, a consent decree of annulment was granted, with the marriage declared null and void. The annulment was granted in circumstances where the marriage was not entered into with the requisite mental capacity due to stress of COVID-19, such that this was deemed an impediment rendering the marriage void. The applicant did have legal advice and representation at the time of the annulment. It appears that the respondent did have legal advice in relation to the annulment but ultimately represented herself before the Court for the granting of the annulment. The operative ground which was the first of the three recited in the Petition read –

(i) “That the parties felt under pressure to proceed with the wedding as it had been cancelled and re-planned after great effort three separate times, with each venue cancelled due to lock-down restrictions arising from COVID-19. The wedding was re-scheduled in great haste over a five day period to take place in the family home in Ireland in [] August, 2020. Both parties believe that they were caught up in the excitement of travelling to Ireland and getting married and had not given the decision clear and thoughtful consideration so that they had the mental capacity to enter into a valid and binding marriage.”

4 . Insofar as the granting of the annulment is concerned it does appear from the evidence that the “hearing” was a paper-based exercise during COVID-19 times. Certainly, it is apparent from the evidence that neither side gave oral evidence to the Court in Arizona.

5 . The applicant, who is a professional athlete, is domiciled in Ireland. He was born in the United States of America in 1995. He was entitled to American citizenship by birth. The applicant's father is Irish. The applicant's mother was born in the US but renounced her US citizenship in favour of Irish citizenship. The applicant's family moved overseas in 1996 before returning to Ireland in 2000. The applicant attended both primary and secondary school in Ireland. The applicant has never changed this domicile. Upon turning 18 years of age, the applicant renounced his US citizenship in favour of Irish citizenship. The applicant favoured his Irish nationality and did not want US citizenship.

6 . The joint consent decree for the annulment of the marriage dated 20 January 2021 provides agreed arrangements for the service of documents abroad, should one of the parties seek to have the consent decree recognised in other jurisdictions, and in particular, Ireland.

7 . The parties did not claim any maintenance or property reliefs as against the other in the nullity proceedings — as they might have done in accordance with Arizona law. The applicant did provide the sum of $25,000 to the respondent to assist her in obtaining alternative housing. The final payment from this total sum was provided to the respondent by cheque posted on 17 March 2021 to a named address in Colorado Springs, United States of America (the mother's home address).

8 . The couple had intended to get married in the United States. However, due to COVID—19 difficulties and lockdowns, their plans in that regard proved difficult and they decided to look at the Irish option. This caused them to travel to Ireland where they arranged the wedding. At this time the applicant was residing in Arizona on a visitor's visa – and was 25 years of age.

9 . The respondent is American by birth. She is an American citizen and she is domiciled in the United States. She was born in Utah, USA in 1998. Her parents are American. She has lived and was educated in America for all of her life. Her father was born in Michigan. Her mother's place of birth was Japan as her family was stationed in the US military there. The mother's residence however was the State of Utah – as shown on the respondent's birth certificate. The respondent has two sisters and one brother. During her early childhood years she lived in Michigan. Her parents divorced and she subsequently lived and was educated in Colorado Springs. She was educated in Colorado Springs.

10 . In 2017 the respondent relocated to Arizona and attended University in Arizona. She obtained an undergraduate Bachelor of Arts Degree between 2017 and 2020. During this time she lived on University Campus. She also worked as a café server in Arizona from October 2017 to March 2020.

11 . In correspondence from the applicant's solicitors to the Chief State Solicitor's Office dated 18 January 2022, it is asserted that “ we understand Ms. C is now completing a masters degree … which she commenced in 2021.” However, in evidence the applicant said that he last spoke to the respondent four or five days after she left the house in Arizona. He spoke to her because he was concerned about her due to the content of several text messages he had received from her after she left. He did not speak to her subsequently. Later in evidence, in cross—examination, the applicant said that as far as he was aware the respondent did not return to Arizona.

12 . The respondent's mother resides in Colorado Springs along with the respondent's two...