The Supreme Court has ruled that a man cannot be estopped from denying the validity of his purported 1983 marriage in proceedings seeking judicial separation and financial relief. It answered “No” to a question referred by a Circuit Court judge, while stressing that its decision did not determine whether the woman could pursue another remedy.
The case concerned a divorce the man obtained in Ohio in 1982 from his first wife. The Supreme Court said the divorce could not be recognised in Ireland: neither spouse was domiciled or resident in Ohio, and the man had made false claims about his residence to that court.
The woman married him in Dublin in March 1983, believing the Ohio divorce was effective. The judgment records that the man had been told by English authorities that the divorce would not be recognised there, but concealed that correspondence from her. He told the Dublin marriage registrar he was a bachelor. The couple lived together for about 17 years and had two daughters.
The woman began Circuit Court proceedings in 2001 seeking judicial separation and related financial relief. The man defended the claim and counterclaimed for declarations that the Ohio divorce was not recognisable in Ireland and that the 1983 ceremony was void. He also sought financial relief, including transfer of her interest in their home.
At a preliminary hearing, the Circuit Court judge found that justice required preventing the man from challenging the divorce and, by extension, the second marriage. The judge referred a legal question to the Supreme Court: whether the man was estopped from denying that he was married to the woman.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the “considerable injustice” to the woman and described the man’s claim as “starkly unmeritorious”. But it held that judicial separation and its ancillary financial orders depended on the court finding that a valid marriage existed. Since the Ohio divorce was invalid and the later marriage was void, estoppel could not supply that requirement in this statutory proceeding.
The Court said it was not deciding whether the woman could bring a separate action, such as one alleging deceit, or what remedy might be available in such proceedings. It also said it could not order the man to begin divorce proceedings with his first wife. The judgment noted that either of them could initiate divorce proceedings in Ireland.