Woman loses court action to get annulment

Mary Carolan

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.

Psychiatrist gave evidence to court

THE WOMAN, an Irish citizen who may only be referred to as a professional person in the south of Ireland, had sought to annul her church marriage of 1993 to a Scottish professional, whom she met five years earlier. They had two children, and separated in 1997.

In seeking nullity, the woman contended her consent to the marriage was not fully informed due to misrepresentation of fundamental facts and fraud on the husband's part relating to his personal and family circumstances, character and intentions. She claimed he lacked capacity to marry due to psychological immaturity and underdevelopment of character.

A psychiatrist had told the High Court the man had a "narcissistic personality disorder" to such an extent as to make it impossible for him to consent to and sustain marriage with the woman.

He had a fundamental difficulty with trust and allowing himself to be trusted, constructed a personality entirely at variance with reality and told untruths to conceal his financial difficulties and get maximum attention, the psychiatrist said.

The woman alleged he had represented himself as of substantial wealth when he was actually chronically indebted and incapable of managing his own affairs. She claimed she had to pay for their marriage and was the main breadwinner. She also alleged he misrepresented the extent of his status as a partner in a Scottish business and concealed circumstances which led to the collapse of the partnership.

He also allegedly misrepresented himself as the son of a happy and functional family, when he had "an unusual and secretive relationship" with his parents and she had never met any extended family. After the birth of their first child, she claimed he showed no interest in sustaining a sexual relationship, drank excessively and remained secretive about his personal feelings and activities.

This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times.