The High Court has rejected a man's challenge to a Cork Circuit Court decision refusing his application for a decree of nullity of marriage and declining to adjourn the hearing.
L.M. and A.M. married in May 1991 and have two children. A.M. began judicial separation proceedings in Cork Circuit Court in December 2001. A year later, L.M. counterclaimed for a decree of nullity, alleging problems with consent and capacity to enter and sustain a marital relationship.
The family law proceedings continued for several years. L.M.'s solicitor came off record in 2004 and he thereafter represented himself. A clinical psychologist was appointed as medical inspector in 2006, and the nullity case was ultimately listed for May 11, 2007.
The psychologist's report only became available on the morning of the hearing. L.M. sought an adjournment, saying he needed time to consider it and was disadvantaged because he had no lawyer. The Circuit Court refused the application. L.M. then declined to give evidence or cross-examine A.M., and his nullity application was refused.
In the High Court, L.M. argued that the refusal of an adjournment denied him fair procedures. Mr Justice O'Neill disagreed. He noted that L.M. had pleaded his nullity case as far back as 2002 and bore a heavy burden of proving it. The independent medical examiner's role was to assist the court, not to assemble evidence on L.M.'s behalf. The report itself provided no support for his pleaded grounds.
The court also found no substantiated breach of Circuit Court rules and rejected L.M.'s allegation of bias.
Separately, the High Court held that the judicial review application had not been brought promptly. The underlying family proceedings were already significantly delayed, and L.M.'s status as a lay litigant did not excuse further delay.
The court refused the requested orders, leaving the Circuit Court's refusal of nullity undisturbed and allowing the underlying family law process to continue.