P.F v G.O'M (Otherwise G.F)

Last updated

P.F v G.O'M (Otherwise G.F)
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Grounds of nullity of marriage
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Decided28/11/2000
Citation(s)[2000] IESC 81
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Court membership
Judges sittingHC- O'Higgins, J SC- McGuinness J,
Case opinions
Decision byMrs. Justice McGuinness
ConcurrenceMurray J., Geoghegan J.
Concur/dissentMrs. Justice McGuinness
DissentMrs. Justice McGuinness
Keywords
family law

P.F v G.O'M (Otherwise G.F) [2000] IESC 81 is an Irish Supreme Court case concerning the grounds of nullity of marriage.The court believe that adultery is not a reason for nullity of the marriage but did serve as a basis for legal separation. [1] The court ruled that "consent" was not undermined where a party to the marriage had concealed misconduct. This case is thus significant for establishing the principles for annulment and clarifying the nature of consent. [2] [3]

Contents

Background

The case concerned a request for annulment of marriage. The petitioner claimed that the other party in the marriage had been in another relationship during the engagement, and that this affair continued after the two were married. The petitioner argued that had he known about the affair he would have never consented to the marriage and that this was grounds for annulment because consent requires a person to be "free and informed." [4]

This petition for a decree of nullity was refused by the High Court. Mr. Justice O'Higgins held that while it had been accepted that the petitioner would not have entered into a marriage with the respondent had he been aware of her affair with another man, the evidence did not consent as to establishing whether his consent to the marriage was not full, free and informed.

The petitioner subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

Holding of the Supreme Court

In dismissing this appeal and the cross-appeal the case of D.B v O'R [1991] 1 I.R 289, [5] the Court ruled that these cases illustrate the use of the word "informed" as not being used in regard to consent, but instead refers to a situation where:

"The apparent decision to marry has been caused to such an extent by external pressure or influence, whether falsely or honestly applied, as to lose the character of a fully free act of that person's will". [3]

Due to this context, the Court accepted that the use of "informed" in other judgements is used in a manner of being informed about the alternatives available to marriage. There was no suggestion that the petitioner should have been informed about either the conduct or character of the respondent prior to the marriage, and that if he was not so informed that the marriage was void. [6]

In this case, the question was whether the husband's lack of knowledge of his partner's affair before and when married meant that his consent had been misinformed. McGuinness. J disagreed. [7] McGuinness held that adultery was a ground for judicial separation but not a ground for annulment. The Court ruled that the definition of informed consent put forward by the petitioner was too broad. It could be used to request annulment in circumstances where any number of things were unknown to a party at the time of the marriage. [8] [9]

The court also ruled that there was a necessity for certainty in marriage, which is enshrined in the Constitution, and an introduction of a ground of nullity which would bring uncertainty to a wide variety of marriages was not only undesirable as a matter of public policy, it was contrary to the clear intention of the Constitution. [10]

"This, it appears, would apply regardless of whether or not the information had been deliberately concealed by the respondent. The test is subjective.Presumably all that would be required would be for the Petitioner to give evidence that he or she would not have married the Respondent had this information been available before the marriage". [11]

The Court dismissed the appeal.

Subsequent developments

The more restrained test elaborated in this case is now the established limit. [12]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Annulment</span> Legal procedure for declaring a marriage null and void

Annulment is a legal procedure within secular and religious legal systems for declaring a marriage null and void. Unlike divorce, it is usually retroactive, meaning that an annulled marriage is considered to be invalid from the beginning almost as if it had never taken place. In legal terminology, an annulment makes a void marriage or a voidable marriage null.

The Family Home Protection Act of 1976 is an Act of the Oireachtas which regulates an aspect of property law in Ireland and prevents the sale, partial sale, mortgage or re-mortgage of a property which is defined as a family home under the terms of the Act without the knowledge and consent of both spouses therein residing. A family home under the terms of the Act is a dwelling which is the ordinary residence of a married couple. The effect of the act is that, although the property may be in the registered ownership of one spouse only, this spouse cannot carry out transactions concerning the property – which could lead to the loss of the family home – without the other spouse's knowledge and consent.

In the Catholic Church, a declaration of nullity, commonly called an annulment and less commonly a decree of nullity, and in some cases, a Catholic divorce, is an ecclesiastical tribunal determination and judgment that a marriage was invalidly contracted or, less frequently, a judgment that ordination was invalidly conferred.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Matrimonial Causes Act 1973</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom governing divorce law and marriage in England and Wales.

<i>Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny</i> 2016 Irish Supreme Court case

Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny, [2016] IESC 9, [2016] 2 IR 283 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court confirmed the Irish courts’ jurisdiction to strike out (dismiss) weak cases—those it considered “bound to fail."

<i>Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne, [2015] IESC 46, [2016] 1 IR 92, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court clarified the impact of a lender failing to comply with the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears 2010 on that lender's right to obtain an order of possession of mortgaged property.

<i>Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.

<i>Nottinghamshire County Council v B</i> 2011 Irish Supreme Court case

Nottinghamshire County Council v B[2011] IESC 48; [2013] 4 IR 662 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court refused to overturn an order of the High Court returning children of married parents from England to that jurisdiction, following a request by the English courts under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980.

<i>Kelly v Trinity College Dublin</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Kelly v Trinity College Dublin[2007] IESC 61; [2007] 12 JIC 1411; is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that former employments or associations are insufficient, in the absence of other evidence, to disqualify a person from participating in disciplinary or similar tribunals related to that former employment.

<i>OConnell & anor v The Turf Club</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Connell & anor v The Turf Club, [2015] IESC 57, [2017] 2 IR 43 is an Irish Supreme Court case which explored the scope of judicial review in Ireland. It addressed whether the decisions of a sport's organizing body should be amenable to judicial review. In deciding that it was, this decision became a useful reminder that it is not only bodies created by statute, which are generally considered to be subject to public law, that are amenable to Judicial Review by the Courts.

<i>Bank of Ireland v ODonnell & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Bank of Ireland v O'Donnell & ors[2015] IESC 90 is an Irish Supreme Court case that centred around whether the appellants had any right or capacity to bring a motion before the court. They wanted to seek an order of a stay on Mr Justice McGovern's order dated 24 July 2014. In their appeal, they referred to the principle of objective bias and Mr Justice McGovern's refusal to recuse himself. The Supreme Court rejected the application for a stay and held that the law regarding objective bias was clearly stated in the lower court.

<i>Goold v Collins and Ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Goold v Collins and Ors [2004] IESC 38, [2004] 7 JIC 1201 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a statutory provision's constitutionality may be reviewed only at the behest of a litigant who is contesting some current application of that provision.

<i>Delahunty v Player and Wills (Ireland) Ltd.</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Delahunty v Player and Wills (Ireland) Ltd, [2006] 1 IR 304; [2006] IESC 21 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court gave a woman permission to take action for damages against two major tobacco companies in what was the first step in the battle against 'Big tobacco'.

<i>A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison[2006] IESC 45; [2006] 4 IR 88; [2006] 2 ILRM 481, the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that a finding that criminal legislation is unconstitutional need not render existing convictions void.

<i>MJELR v Rettinger</i> Irish Supreme Court case

MJELR v Rettinger[2010] IESC 45, [2010] 3 IR 783, was a case in which the Irish Supreme Court ruled that to resist the application of a European Arrest Warrant on the basis that it would result in treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the wanted individual must offer substantial grounds to believe that he or she would be exposed to a real risk of such treatment.

<i>D.C. v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

D.C. v DPP[2005] 4 IR 281, [2006] ILRM 348; [2005] IESC 77 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that the standard to be met for prohibiting a trial is "where there is a real or serious risk of an unfair trial".

<i>T(D) v L(F) & Anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

T(D) v L(F) & Anor, [2003] IESC 59 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in relation to foreign divorce proceedings, the burden of proof is on the parties to establish their domicile. Thus, in this case the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and upheld the judgement of the High Court as he was unable to establish his domicile.

<i>A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality and others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

A v Minister for Justice and Equality, Refugee Applications Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General[2013] IESC 18, (2013) 2 ILRM 457 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court concluded that a certificate of leave to appeal was not required in order to appeal to the Supreme Court a decision of the High Court to dismiss proceedings as frivolous or vexatious.

<i>K. (C.) v. K.</i> (J.) Irish Supreme Court case

K. (C.) v. K. (J.)[2004] IESC 21; [2004] 1 IR 224, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the doctrine of estoppel could not be used to change the status of a person, when the status, as a matter of law, never actually changed.

<i>Board of Management St. Molagas National School v The Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Board of Management St. Molaga's National School v The Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science [2010] IESC 57, [2011] 1 IR 362, is a case in which the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that under Section 29 of the Education Act 1998, the decision of a school's board of management to refuse to enrol a student may be subject to a full re-hearing by an appeals committee appointed by the Minister for Education.

References

  1. ↑ Same-sex relationships, law and social change. Hamilton, Frances (Law teacher), Noto La Diega, Guido. Abingdon, Oxon. ISBN   978-0-429-02158-9. OCLC   1138887323.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  2. ↑ Annual Review of Irish Law 2006, 20(1), 372-389, *372
  3. 1 2 "F. (P.) v. O'M. (G.) [2000] IESC 81; [2001] 3 IR 1 (28 November 2000)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  4. ↑ "F. (P.) v. O'M. (G.) [2000] IESC 81; [2001] 3 IR 1 (28 November 2000)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 December 2019.
  5. ↑ D.B v O'R [1991] 1 I.R 289
  6. ↑ {G. v. An Bord Uchtala [1980] I.R. 32; S. v. S., unreported Supreme Court, July 1, 1976; N. (orse K)v. K. [1985] I.R. 733; Griffith v. Griffith [1944] I.R. 35; Moss v. Moss (1987) 263; D.B. (Orse O'R)v. O'R [1991] 1 I.R. 289 considered; M.J. v C.J., unreported, High Court, February 21, 1991. and M.O'M. (orse O'C)v. B.O'C. [1996] 1 R.R. 208 distinguished}
  7. ↑ Annual Review of Irish Law [2006] *372 Family Law, 20(1), 372-389
  8. ↑ Annual Review of Irish Law 2009, 23(1), 465-491
  9. ↑ Annual Review of Irish Law 2006, 20(1), 372-389
  10. ↑ "Strong evidence is needed to support nullity petition". The Irish Times. Retrieved 25 August 2023.
  11. ↑ "P.F v G.O'M (Otherwise G.F) [2000] IESC 81". login.jproxy.nuim.ie. Retrieved 12 December 2019.
  12. ↑ Annual Review of Irish Law 2009, 23(1), 465-491, *465 Family Law
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.