The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by L.M. over the refusal to adjourn a hearing on his claim that his marriage was invalid, while finding that the Circuit Court had not sufficiently respected fair procedures when it proceeded after a medical report was delivered on the hearing day.
In a judgment delivered on 12 July 2011, Mr Justice Fennelly said L.M. had received the court-appointed medical inspector’s report only shortly before the hearing on 11 May 2007. He had not had an opportunity to consider whether he needed his own expert evidence. The Circuit Court judge refused his request for an adjournment and dismissed his nullity claim after a hearing lasting no more than 15 minutes.
L.M. had filed the nullity claim in 2002 as a counterclaim to proceedings brought by A.M. seeking judicial separation. He was unrepresented by the time of the 2007 hearing and said an application for legal aid was pending. He declined to give evidence or cross-examine A.M. The Supreme Court accepted that he was in an extremely difficult position and concluded that the refusal to adjourn failed to respect fair procedures.
The Court did not, however, set aside the Circuit Court order. It said the decision on an adjournment to allow L.M. to pursue legal aid was not open to criticism, given the history of the case and the time since his solicitor had stopped acting. It also rejected his claim of objective bias, finding that the judge’s conduct showed a wish to dispose of the case, not favour one party.
The Court said L.M. had taken no steps to advance his nullity claim between filing it in 2002 and the 2007 hearing, despite being asked three times in 2005 to file a certificate of readiness. It held that setting aside the dismissal would send the parties back at least four years and put judicial-separation proceedings already heard in question, which would be unjust to A.M. A divorce decree had also been granted in March 2009.
The High Court had dismissed L.M.’s judicial-review application. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision, but on different grounds: despite the procedural defect, it exercised its discretion to refuse certiorari and dismissed the appeal.