[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> H. (J.W.) v. W. (G.) [1998] IEHC 33 (25th February, 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1998/33.html Cite as: [1998] IEHC 33 |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
1. The
Petitioner went through a ceremony of marriage with the Respondent on the 27th
day of September 1986. The Petitioner seeks a decree of nullity and the
issues to be tried were fixed by Order of the Master as follows:-
4. Dr.
Art O'Connor prepared a report dated 20th November, 1997 and gave evidence to
the Court. It appears from that report (a) that the Petitioner's
5. Petitioner
and the Respondent were "
playing
at
"
being married according to
Dr.
O'Connor and he was of the view that the marriage had not got a chance
with
the two personalities involved.
6. Dr.
O'Connor expressed views as to the capacity of the Respondent. He described
the Respondent as a violent person with no commitment to the marriage, with a
drink problem, who was staying out and not coming home and said that he had
probably some personality problems and that he was probably an alcoholic. In
regard to the mental capacity of the Respondent, the Respondent was not in
Court and has not given evidence. The Respondent has not been seen or
examined by Dr. O'Connor. The only basis for the opinion of Dr. O'Connor is
the information given to him by the Petitioner at interview. In those
circumstances, while recognising the expertise of Dr. O'Connor as a
psychiatrist, the Court has to be very careful in assessing the value to be
attached to the opinion obtained in such circumstances. There was, moreover,
a difference in emphasis at least between the evidence of alcohol abuse of the
Respondent given by the Petitioner and of that told to Dr. O'Connor.
7. The
Petitioner in her evidence struck me as being an intelligent, well-balanced and
pleasant individual. The way she presents now is, however, of little
assistance in assessing her capacity at the time when she went through her
marriage ceremony.
8. I
have been referred to a number of authorities by Ms. Barron. These include
D
-v- C
1984
1 ILRM
;
N
(otherwise K) -v- K
1986
ILRM;
B
& M
,
judgment of Mr. Justice Barrington dated 27th day of March 1987;
UF
(otherwise UC ) -v- JC
1991
2 IR, (also reported
subnom
F
(otherwise C)
-v-
C
1991
ILRM;
and
PC
-v- VC
1992
IR
.
9. I
accept it as being well settled law that the Court may grant a decree of
nullity on the basis of incapacity to enter into a marital relationship by
virtue of lack of emotional maturity as well as an incapacity by virtue of
various psychological factors. I am of the view, however, that the emotional
immaturity has to be such as would render the person quite incapable of forming
and sustaining marriage relationship.
11. In
the same case Griffin J. said:-
12. Applying
those principles to the issues in the present case the following questions are
to be answered:-
16. There
is no evidence before the Court in relation to this topic and, therefore,
18. Because
his opinion is based on an interview with the Petitioner only, and
20. Furthermore,
Dr. O'Connor stated that the fact that the Respondent failed to attend for
psychiatric examination is further evidence of his state of mind. In the case
of
JC
-v- CS (otherwise CT)
,
a judgment determined on 14th day of October 1996
to
which I was also referred, Budd J. says as follows:
22. The
facts of the matter are:
23. In
my view, while all these factors boded ill for the success of the
marriage,
I cannot accept that at the time of the marriage the Petitioner was
incapable
of forming a lasting marital relationship. There is no
25. It
is apparent from the evidence before me that there were a number of factors
which made a happy and successful marriage less likely. It is equally clear
that the marriage was not a success, and appears to have ended many years ago.
However, those facts do not warrant the granting of a nullity petition. It may
well be that some other remedy is more appropriate to the Petitioner.
Accordingly, I must refuse the petition.