[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> B. (D.), Orse O'R. v. O'R. (N.) [1988] IEHC 24 (29 July 1988) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/1988/1988_IEHC_24.html Cite as: [1988] IEHC 24

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE HIGH COURT

D B (OTHERWISE O'R)

PETITIONER

AND

N O'R

RESPONDENT

Judgment of Miss Justice Carroll delivered the 29th day of July, 1988.

If a person is induced or forced to go through a ceremony of marriage by fear of threats, intimidation, duress or undue influence of another person, such a marriage is invalid. The petitioner complains her consent was not a true consent due to duress or undue influence. What the Court must decide is whether the alleged pressure was such it overbore the freewill of this particular petitioner. The pressure must be pressure from a person, not pressure of events such as unwanted pregnancy, or fear of being poor or of having nowhere to live or of being unable to cope on one's own - such events or anticipated events might explain the motive for getting married, but events alone cannot constitute duress or unreasonable influence. That must come from a person. Present or anticipated events could exacerbate duress from a person but unless there is this element of duress or undue influence from another person a petitioner cannot claim nullity on this ground.

In this case the petitioner was 16 years of age when she got married. She had been placed in an orphanage by her parents at an early age and she did not know of the existence of her parents, or of brothers and sisters, until the age of eleven. She first met her parents when she was aged thirteen. They made little attempt to have contact with her. However in 1965 when she was fifteen she spent a month with her family in their caravan where they were then living in Blackrock. While there she went to work in a café in Dun Laoghaire where she met the respondent, who was then aged twenty-five. He was on leave from the British Army. They went out together. When he returned to camp after the summer they corresponded. The petitioner gave him the address of a school friend to write to so the correspondence would not be detected. They saw each other at Christmas when he bought her an engagement ring. The following Whit she went to her parents for the weekend. She again went out with the respondent and they had sexual intercourse once, as a result of which the petitioner became pregnant. She returned to the orphanage to do her Intermediate examination that year, and then returned to her parents' home. As a result of a letter written by the respondent to the petitioner at her home address, which was Intercepted by her parents, they brought her back to the convent, blaming the nun in charge, Sister Ligouri, for the event. Sister Ligouri talked to the petitioner, she was examined by a doctor, and the pregnancy was confirmed. Sister Ligouri got in touch with the respondent and had a long talk with him.

He came home from England, agreed to marry the petitioner, and arrangements were made for the wedding. She spent the week before the wedding with two women who had befriended her as a child and whom she had visited frequently. She was married from their home on 12.8.1966 and went to England with the respondent. Neither set of parents attended the wedding, except for the respondent's mother who stayed at the back of the church. When the respondent was sent to another camp in England, without married quarters, the petitioner came home and stayed with her mother-in-law. Then the respondent left the Army and came home for good. The third child was born, the couple were housed, and a further two children were born. When the children were old enough the petitioner went to work on contract cleaning in factories.

She began to go out alone without the respondent, initially with his consent. It is obvious she became more and more dissatisfied with her marriage. She had a liaison with a married man. The respondent objected, used violence to push her out of the house and she fell and broke her leg. In an attempt to save the marriage they attended a counsellor but this did not succeed.

The petitioner started a petition for a legal separation. Both went for conciliation sessions which the respondent thought meant reconciliation. At the end when he realised he was being asked to vacate the family home and give custody of the children to the petitioner and pay maintenance, he refused. Things went from bad to worse. He was violent. She had him barred from the house. She began an affair with another man who stayed periodically in the house. The respondent objected. He was prosecuted in the Circuit Court by his wife for the same episode for which he was barred. He was fined and bound over to the peace.

As far as the respondent is concerned he has had a total commitment to the marriage over the years. I believe him when he says he has been faithful. I believe he provided as best he could for his wife and family and did not want his home and family to break up. The petitioner wants to get out of the marriage if she can. She is now living with another man. She has left the family home and has four of the children with her. The eldest son, who objected to his mother being with another man, was barred by her from the family home. After his mother moved out, he moved back and is now living there. As far as the respondent is concerned I am satisfied there was no coercion at all by him at the time of the marriage. He met the petitioner after he came home on several occasions when she was staying with two friends. He took her to town to buy clothes and a ring, and another time to visit a priest in Blackrock prior to the wedding. As to the parents, who had already rejected the petitioner in childhood and had taken her back to the convent when they discovered the pregnancy, there is no evidence they issued any threats or coercion. If there was duress or undue influence it can only have come from Sister Ligouri. I view the petitioner's evidence guardedly because she is obviously motivated from a desire to get out of the marriage so that she can marry the man with whom she is living. The petitioner herself says that Sister Ligouri asked her was she pregnant, and she said she thought she was. Sister Ligouri got in the school doctor who examined her. She said "I had to tell Sister Ligouri what happened - she was our mother and teacher". The doctor confirmed the pregnancy. She said she was vague after that. It was arranged over her head Sister Ligouri contacted the respondent and he was willing to marry her.

She did not think she saw a priest before the marriage or remember the actual ceremony. She said she was scared going into marriage. The relationship with her mother and father was nil - it was Sister Ligouri she regarded as her mother. Sister Ligouri said she was an independent child but gave no trouble, was easily reared, very thorough and reserved she never found her disobedient or disagreeable but she had a mind of her own a likeable child. Sister Ligouri thought it was July when she heard the petitioner was pregnant, that the father came with the mother, was very angry and passed the responsibility on to the convent. But if he was angry he did not show it to the petitioner as she did not know until years later that it was her parents who told Sister Ligouri - she thought she was going back to the convent because it was easier to get a lob from that address.

Sister Ligouri's impression was that she got in touch with the respondent. Sister Ligouri could not remember a discussion with her but it could have happened. She said she would have made the arrangements with the priest in Blackrock. She was on retreat at the time of the marriage. She kept in touch with both, visited them over the years and p was well received by both of them. Her impression of the petitioner was a reserved girl, but not withdrawn, Sister Ligouri herself could not remember her thoughts of twenty years ago. My impression of Sister Ligouri was she was a very caring woman and I could not see her putting undue influence on the petitioner to get married. The petitioner does not remember voicing an opinion. If she had said she did not want to get married I am quite sure Sister Ligouri would have helped her.

I do not find a parallel between this case and that of N. (otherwise K.) .v. K. The petitioner has been married more than twenty years and is now a woman of strong character and I can well appreciate Sister Ligouri's assessment of her as an independent child with a mind of her own. I am satisfied her mind was not overborne by Sister Ligouri or any other person. Circumstances led her to the marriage but I am satisfied she intended to get married and her consent was a true consent. I refuse the petition.