High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. The parties hereto were married on the 15th January, 1977 at the Parish Church in Killiney, Co. Dublin.

2. There were three children of the marriage namely D. born on the

3. The Petitioner alleges that he was put under severe duress by his own parents and by the Respondent's parents to marry the Respondent once they became aware that the Respondent had delivered a baby on the 21st day of October, 1976.

4. The Petitioner herein prays the Court for an Order that the marriage celebrated between the Petitioner and Respondent is null and void.

5. The Respondent in her answer denies that pressure was put on the Petitioner to marry her and she further denies all the allegations in the Petition. Evidence in this case was given by the Petitioner, W.D., his mother, Mrs. D., and by the Respondent herein. In addition a report was handed into court from Dr. David Shanley, a consultant psychiatrist, who examined both parties.

6. Mr. W.D., the Petitioner herein, was born on the

7. He visited the Respondent herein on two occasions while she was in Cork.

8. On New Year's Eve 1976 the Petitioner was out socialising and when he returned to his parent's home at approximately 2.00 a.m. on the following morning the parents were waiting up for him, they had at that time been informed that he was the father of a baby and they instructed him that he would have to get married to the Respondent herein. At that time he had no intention of getting married and he was shocked when he realised that the Respondent had visited his family and informed his parents of the arrival of the baby.

9. A few days later the Respondent came to his office in Dun Laoghaire where he was working and indicated to him that she was under considerable pressure from her parents to get married. The Respondent told him that her mother was putting pressure on her to get married and if she did not get married the baby would be taken back to the United States by her brother and that she had no alternative but to marry if she wished to retain the baby. A family conference took place in the Respondent's parent's home at which the Petitioner and his father attended and that the Respondent's mother and father were present and also her brother who had arrived home from the United States. He was told by all concerned that he would have to marry the Respondent herein, that the baby would have to be given a name and if he failed to marry the Respondent the brother would take the baby to the United States. The baby was produced and that was the first time he saw the baby and this put considerable pressure on him. He was not ready financially or emotionally to get married.

10. The wedding was subsequently arranged within two weeks from the family conference day and he had absolutely nothing to do with the wedding. He did not pick the date for the wedding, the church for the wedding or the hotel for the subsequent reception. He stated that if he got time to consider the matter he would not have married the Respondent herein.

11. Prior to the wedding he went to the local priest. He advised the local priest of the situation and he advised him against going through with the marriage and the local priest said he would have a chat with the respective parents and he suggested that possibly the baby might be adopted. The local priest got a very bad reception from both sets of parents when he suggested to them that the marriage should be postponed.

12. On the night prior to the wedding the Petitioner was in the company of the Respondent, he told her that he did not wish to go through with the wedding and he tried to convince the Respondent herein not to go through with it. His belief was that both himself and the Respondent were under considerable pressure to go through with the wedding. On the morning of the wedding he said to his mother that he was not going through with the wedding and she said to him that he would have to go through with it and she was not prepared to allow him to live in her house anymore.

13. In relation to the wedding no invitations were sent out, guests were not invited and approximately twelve people attended the reception in the hotel. The reception was advertised as a birthday party. He stated he married not of his own free will, he was under immense pressure and also a threat that he would be kneecapped if he failed to go through with the wedding ceremony. There was no honeymoon, the wedding took place on a Saturday and he was back at work the following Monday. Following the marriage he still believed that he was single and he did not accept the fact that he was married.

14. In 1982 the Petitioner applied to the catholic church for a church annulment which was granted some years later. In 1990 he went to his solicitor who then advised him that he could bring a civil claim for annulment.

15. In cross-examination he stated that the Respondent wanted to keep the baby but that he encouraged her to have the baby adopted. He stated that the wedding was arranged by the families, that it was hastily arranged and that it was an informal wedding.

16. Evidence was also given by the mother of the Petitioner. She stated that on the evening of the 31st December, 1976 she and her husband had a visit from the Respondent herein and that they had never heard of the Respondent herein before or the fact that she had had a baby by the Petitioner. The Respondent told the Petitioner's mother that her son W. would have to marry her and if not her brother would kneecap him if he failed to do so. Mrs. D. stated that both families got on very well and it was agreed between the families that her son would marry the Respondent herein. She stated that both families wanted them to marry for the sake of the baby and her son was going to be made to marry the Respondent. She stated that her family were shocked when they realised what had happened and the marriage took place approximately two weeks later.

17. She stated that her son, on the morning of the wedding, told her that he was not going ahead with the wedding and that he did not want to marry the Respondent. She was quite emphatic that her son would not have married but for the pressure that was put on him. Her husband was anxious that the baby would have a proper family life and that her son was put under intense pressure and had no choice in the matter. The wedding was arranged by the Respondent's family and her family did not want anybody to know about the existence of the baby. She stated that one week after the wedding her son said to her that he was not staying in the marriage, he intended getting out and he could not stand it.

18. The Respondent then gave evidence. She stated that she had worked for one year in the United States and when she returned home she met the Petitioner herein and she fell for him. She was then twenty-eight years of age and she felt comfortable and secure in his presence. A sexual relationship commenced between them and that in the Spring of 1976 she became pregnant. The Petitioner wanted her to have an abortion but she was not interested in abortion. She was informed about a convent in Cork and she arranged that she would go to this convent for the duration of her pregnancy and have the baby there. She told her parents that she was going to London to work. The baby D. was born on the 21st October, 1976. Some time after the birth she then told her mother that she had a baby and her mother told her that she was to come home. When she returned home her mother and her brother put her under pressure to do something about it. Her father was very upset. Her mother was quite a dominant personality and that she told her she would have to give the child a name. Her bother told her that she would have to get on the phone and to ring the father and his parents. She rang the parents and then called to see them and his parents stated that if she wanted to marry him she was to go ahead and do so. She stated that at the back of it all that she did not want to marry him, as she had found out things that she did not like about him, that he had rejected the child when she became pregnant and that he did not want to know anything about it. The Petitioner's father told her that if she wanted to marry the Petitioner that he, the father, would make him do so. She stated in evidence that the Petitioner herein was insistent that he did not want to get married. She accepted in evidence that both of them were under considerable pressure to marry one another. She agreed that if she did not contact the Petitioner's parents that he would never had contacted her. She further agreed that she married the Petitioner herein because of pressure from her parents and she accepted that a night or so before the wedding the Petitioner told her that he did not want to go through with the marriage. She agreed that her mother and his parents arranged the marriage ceremony. There was no engagement as such. The Petitioner at no time proposed marriage to her and she was not anxious herself to marry.

19. The report of Dr. Shanley concludes that both parties to the marriage, on being interviewed by him separately, indicated clearly that there was overt and covert pressure from both families to get married and as a consequence of this neither party had either the time nor the opportunity to consider the implications of marriage. He further states that Mr. D. indicated to him that he did not wish to get married right up until the actual day of the marriage. He further states that Mrs D. is in full agreement that there was considerable pressure from both sets of parents to get married. In particular she stated to him that her own parents saw her pregnancy as a potential disgrace on the family and she was clear that her husband said at the time that he did not wish to get married to her.

20. It seems to me that the question in this case that I must ask is did each party to the marriage genuinely freely consent to marry one another?

21. I am absolutely satisfied that the contract of marriage as entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent herein was not one in which there was full and free consent of the contracting parties. The decision to marry on the part of the Petitioner and the Respondent has been caused to such an extent by external pressures from both families that the decision to marry loses the character of a fully free act on each party's behalf so that consequently no valid marriage had taken place.

22. So the relief claimed herein must be granted, namely, that the marriage celebrated between the Petitioner and the Respondent on the 15th January, 1977 is and was null and void.

23. I note that it has been agreed between the parties that no Order is to issue in this case until such time as the family home is transferred into the children's names and also until such time as the judgment mortgages registered against the family home are discharged by the Petitioner herein.