The High Court has refused a woman’s petition to annul her marriage, ruling that the evidence did not establish that her husband lacked capacity to marry or that the alleged misrepresentations entitled her to a decree of nullity.
In a judgment delivered on 20 December 2004, Mr Justice O’Higgins said the petitioner had experienced a “very difficult marriage”. He found that the respondent had not been truthful with her about his finances and work difficulties, and appeared to have overstated his closeness to his extended family. But those matters did not provide grounds for nullity.
The petitioner, an Irish citizen living in the south west of Ireland, married the respondent, who was from and lived in Scotland, in Glasgow in May 1993. They had two children. The petitioner’s 1999 petition alleged that her consent had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, and that the respondent’s psychological immaturity and personality made him incapable of entering into or sustaining a normal marital relationship. The respondent did not take part in the proceedings beyond nominating a solicitor to receive documents. The judge said he was satisfied there was no collusion.
The petitioner told the court that she had supported the respondent financially during the marriage, including paying office rent and debts and providing accommodation. She said she had been unaware of his financial difficulties and professional dispute before they married. The judge accepted that the respondent had been almost entirely financially dependent on her during the marriage, but said the evidence did not show that this dependence was deliberate or that he was incapable of earning a living.
A psychiatrist, Dr Gerard Byrne, had examined both parties and gave evidence that the respondent had a personality disorder that made it impossible for him to consent to and sustain a marriage. The judge considered the expert evidence but rejected the view that several documents and incidents relied on by the psychiatrist showed grandiosity or self-importance. He said the court must exercise its own judgment rather than accept expert opinion unquestioningly.
The judge was not satisfied that the totality of the evidence showed personality traits so outside the norm that they would have prevented the respondent from contracting a valid marriage. He also rejected the claim that the respondent had constructed a persona entirely at variance with reality. Applying the legal approach to informed consent discussed in an earlier nullity case, he said nondisclosure of financial, family and social circumstances, business failures, and failure to act as the family breadwinner did not justify annulment on these facts.
The court refused the petition. The judgment does not grant a decree of nullity.