Woman loses court action to get annulment

A WOMAN has lost a Supreme Court bid to have her four-year marriage annulled on grounds of alleged fraud and misrepresentation by her husband of his character, financial and personal circumstances.

A psychiatrist had diagnosed the husband with a “narcissistic personality disorder” and the woman claimed he was “pathologically given to deception and concealment” in his personal and financial dealings and drank excessively.

Among her claims was, at the time he write her a long love letter in 1997 seeking to get back together, he also sold valuable books belonging to her and tried to sell other books and paintings without telling her. She later took successful court action over those dealings.

The three judge Supreme Court yesterday unanimously dismissed the woman’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to annul her marriage.

The husband had not opposed the nullity petition and had earlier brought judicial separation proceedings which are adjourned pending the nullity judgment.

Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, with whom Mrs Justice Fidelma Macken and Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan agreed, said the Constitution imposes a clear obligation on the courts to uphold the marriage contract and it would require “much stronger evidence” to show the husband lacked the necessary capacity to enter a valid contract of marriage.

The courts had to draw a clear distinction between conduct on the one hand and incapacity on the other.

While this husband engaged in “undoubtedly feckless, irresponsible and immature conduct” and turned out to be not the man the woman thought she was marrying, “one may regretfully observe that the same could be said of many marriages”.

Much of the man’s behaviour relied upon as a ground for nullity occurred after the marriage and did not relate to his capacity at the time of the marriage, the judge added.

He ruled there was ample evidence to support the High Court’s conclusion that the husband’s personality traits were “not so outside the norm” as to constitute a personality disorder and that the husband’s lack of full disclosure about his affairs and circumstances were not grounds for nullity.

The High Court had concluded the husband was very selfish, egotistical, deceitful, dishonest and behaved badly, but those traits did not constitute a personality disorder.

Mr Justice Kearns also said, while it “might be seen as desirable by some that legislation be now enacted to provide for the grant of nullity and its consequences”, the Supreme Court had to determine the case according to the existing relevant legal principles and a decree of nullity could not be granted just for the asking.

The relevant principles included the obligation on the State in article 41.3.1 of the Constitution “to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack”.

The fact that one party to a marriage was not fully informed about the conduct or character of the other before marriage was not of itself sufficient to render a marriage void.

While consent could not be considered informed if information about a person’s mental stability and inherent disposition was withheld, this was not the case where there was concealed misconduct or other misrepresentation.

The introduction of a ground of nullity which would bring uncertainty into a wide variety of marriages was not just undesirable as a matter of public policy but also contrary to the clear intention of article 41.3.1.