The Supreme Court has ruled that a man could not be estopped from denying that he was married to a woman after a marriage ceremony in Dublin, despite findings that he had deceived her about his earlier marriage and an Ohio divorce. The court answered a legal question referred by the Circuit Court in the negative, leaving the underlying proceedings for that court to determine.
The woman began Circuit Court proceedings in September 2001 seeking judicial separation and related relief, including custody, maintenance and an order concerning their jointly purchased family home. The couple had lived together for 17 years and had two children. The man argued that the Ohio divorce was invalid and that, because his first marriage remained in force, the Dublin ceremony did not make them lawfully married.
According to findings set out in the case stated, the man had applied for an Ohio divorce in 1981 or 1982 using misleading information about his address and residence. The divorce was purportedly granted in March 1982. The judgment said the woman entered the Dublin marriage in good faith, having seen the divorce order, while the man concealed that he was not properly divorced.
The Circuit Court judge asked whether, in light of those findings, the man was estopped from denying the marriage. The Supreme Court applied its earlier decision in *Gaffney v Gaffney*, which held that estoppel could not determine whether a person had the legal status of spouse. It therefore answered no. The ruling did not decide the woman’s claims for separation-related relief; the Circuit Court retained the case for final determination.
In a judgment agreeing with Denham J, Murray J said that the refusal of estoppel did not necessarily leave the woman without a remedy. He concluded that, on the facts found by the Circuit Court judge, she would have a cause of action for deceit based on fraudulent misrepresentation. Any such claim would have to be brought and proved in the ordinary way, and a court assessing damages could take account of entitlements she might have had if the marriage had been valid. The Supreme Court did not award damages or determine such a claim.
Murray J also said questions about limitation periods could depend on any continuing fraud or concealment. The Supreme Court did not consider whether the man’s conduct might breach criminal law. The Circuit Court judge retained discretion to decide whether there were grounds to send papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions.