The High Court refused an application to declare that a marriage celebrated in Lebanon in 1975 was valid at its inception under Irish law. Ms Justice Dunne delivered judgment on 4 November 2010. She accepted that the marriage was valid under Lebanese law, but concluded that the declaration could not be granted under section 29(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1995.
The applicant said in an affidavit that he married the respondent at Beirut Shari’ah Court on 3 January 1975. Both parties gave evidence that they were Muslim and that the marriage was valid under Lebanese law. The applicant later married a second notice party in Lebanon. The court described the 1975 marriage as potentially polygamous when entered into and as having become polygamous after the later marriage.
A Lebanese lawyer’s unchallenged affidavits stated that both marriages were valid under Lebanese law and that a Muslim man could marry up to four women. The judge found that the applicant and respondent were domiciled in Lebanon when they married, had capacity to enter the marriage under that law, and had complied with the required formalities. She said there was nothing to suggest otherwise.
The applicant, respondent and second notice party argued that Irish conflict-of-law rules supported recognition of a marriage valid under the law of the place where it was celebrated and the parties’ domicile. They also submitted that the application sought declaratory relief only. The Attorney General opposed the application, arguing that recognition would conflict with Irish public policy and the constitutional understanding of marriage. Those were submissions, not findings.
The judge held that section 29 could apply to marriages celebrated abroad and that foreign marriages should be considered with regard to conflict-of-law principles. She nevertheless concluded that the word “marriage” in section 29(1)(a) could not be interpreted to include a polygamous marriage without departing from the constitutional understanding of marriage. She also said that the Supreme Court’s decision in *Conlon v. Mohamed* did not decide the recognition issue argued in this case, because that question had not been contested there.
The order was limited to refusing the declaration sought. The judgment did not find the Lebanese marriage invalid under Lebanese law, and it did not grant or determine any immigration or family-reunification relief. The judge stated that the marriage was valid under Lebanese law but refused the applicant’s claim.