英文互译镜像站

K. (C.) v K. (J.)

Last updated

C.K v J.K and Fmcg (Notice Parties)
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case name C.K (Applicant) v J.K (Respondent) and F.McG (Notice Party)
Decided31 March 2004
Citation[2004] IESC 21; [2004] 1 IR 224
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Court membership
Judges sittingDenham J, Murray J, McGuinness J, Fennelly J, McCracken J.
Case opinions
The Supreme 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
Decision byDenham J.
Keywords
Divorce | Family Law Act | Judicial Separation | Marital Status | Estoppel

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 (where the court can prevent someone going back on his/her word) could not be used to change the status of a person, when the status, as a matter of law, never actually changed. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

The respondent had previously been married. This marriage had failed and the respondent sought to secure a divorce against it. He was assured by an attorney he met socially that a divorce could be secured for him without any difficulty, despite the absence of certain required legal requirements of residency among other matters. [1]

Documents had been prepared based on incorrect information regarding the address of residence referring to Ohio. The respondent then travelled to Ohio to attend the divorce hearing and the divorce had subsequently been secured.

In 1983, the appellant and respondent were married at the Registry Office in Dublin. The application of registry was on the basis the respondent was a bachelor. There had been no reservation or impediment noted during the marriage ceremony. When the appellant's and respondent's relationship broke down in 2001, the appellant sought a decree of judicial separation in the Circuit Court. In response to this, the respondent, filed his counter claim, seeking a declaration pursuant to s29(1) of the Family Law Act 1995 that the divorce he obtained in the United States of America could not be recognised in Ireland, and a declaration pursuant to s29(1) of the Family Law Act, that the marriage originally entered into by the appellant and the respondent was void and had no effect. The question was whether the Circuit Court had the jurisdictions, regarding the findings it made, to conclude that the respondent could be estopped from denying his marriage to the appellant. The Circuit Court Judge set out his findings as follows:

"I have found that in this case, given the particular facts of the case, justice can only be achieved by the use of estoppel whereby the respondent would not be allowed challenge, at this remove, the validity of his original divorce." [3]

He held:

"I believe that justice between the parties can only be achieved by prohibiting or estopping the respondent from attacking the validity of his divorce and by definition the validity of his marriage to the applicant. However, given the law as stated, I accept that the concept of estoppel as a remedy, well suited to offer a solution in this case, is a judge made and developed principle. I believe it is preferable for the parties to this action that prior to a final determination of the case that the Supreme Court be consulted on this issue." [3]

The question posed by the Circuit Court Judge set out for the Supreme Court was:

"Whether [the Circuit Court is] entitled to hold in these proceedings as a matter of law...that the respondent is estopped from denying that he is married to the applicant" [3]

Holding of the Supreme Court

The Court accepted that the Ohio divorce would not be recognised in the Irish State. Consequently, the ceremony of marriage between the appellant and the respondent that took place in 1983 was invalid. However, it was acknowledged that such a situation would allow for considerable injustice to the appellant and also the respondent's previous wife who believed she had been divorced from the respondent. [4] In answering the question posed, however, the Supreme Court answered in the negative - the respondent could not be estopped from denying that he was married to the appellant. It was held the injustice flowed from the fraudulent actions of the respondent inducing the appellant into an invalid marriage. However, legal marital status is a matter of importance not just to the parties to the marriage and their family, but for the world at large. [2] An invalid marriage could not be made valid when it was void from the very beginning.

Denham J, in delivering her judgment made her conclusion in light of the decision set out in Gaffney v Gaffney [5] where it was established "that estoppel may not be used, to change a person's status when that has not occurred, to prevent a party demonstrating that a foreign divorce decree was given without jurisdiction". [5]

The Court held that "[u]nless Gaffney is overruled by this court it is a governing authority on this issue" [1]

McGuinness J, Fennelly J and McCracken J agreed with this conclusion. Murray J also, fully agreed with this judgement, added that the appellant would have an actionable remedy on the grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation. Murray J went on to note that "[i]n order for such an action to be considered...an appropriate remedy for the infringement of constitutional rights any order which a court may make where deceit is established should provide a reasonable measure of compensation for the consequential and foreseeable loss which a plaintiff has sustained". [3]

Subsequent developments

This case was considered in AR v DR, [6] where it was highlighted that Denham J had observed the decision in Gaffney v Gaffney [5] regarding how "the prohibition on the use of estoppel in cases where marital status is relevant has been a kernel concept of Irish law". [6] Acknowledging the wariness of the courts in allowing for the reliance on estoppel regarding a party's legal or family status.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel</span> Preventive judicial device in common law

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on their word; the person so prevented is said to be "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. Estoppel is also a concept in international law.

Jactitation or jactitation of marriage is an archaic cause of action in English and in Irish law. Where one person falsely asserts that he or she is married to another, the wronged party could obtain an order restraining further repetitions of the falsehood. The action was abolished in England in 1986 and in Ireland in 1995.

<i>Commonwealth v Verwayen</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Commonwealth v Verwayen, also known as the Voyager case, is a leading case involving estoppel in Australia. Bernard Verwayen sued the Australian government for damages caused by a collision between two ships of the Australian Navy. A representative of the Government initially indicated to Bernard Verwayen that the Government would not raise the statute of limitations as a defence to their negligence. In court however, the Government relied on this defence. While the decision of the High Court was split, a majority of judges found that the Government could not rely on this statement as a defence. Justices Toohey and Gaudron came to this conclusion on the basis that the Government had waived their right to rely on this defence. However, Justices Deane and Dawson came to this conclusion under the doctrine of estoppel, which provides that a defendant can not contradict a previous representation or promise made that has established an assumed state of legal affairs. This case is most frequently referred to in relation to its influence on the doctrine of estoppel.

<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>Dunne v Donohoe</i> Irish supreme court case

Dunne v Donohoe [2002] IESC 35, [2002] 2 IR 533 was an Irish Supreme Court Case wherein the court held that a Garda Superintendent was a persona designata and that a guideline issued the Garda Commissioner that imposed fixed preconditions to applications for a firearm certificate would result in the superintendent acting Ultra Vires. By ruling that the guideline interfered with the status of a superintendent as a persona designata, the Court provided an important finding in establishing the limits of discretionary powers under the Irish constitution and the legal standing of guidelines issued under the auspices of a national body.

<i>H v H</i> Irish Supreme Court case

H v H, [2015] IESC 85, also known as JMH v KH, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the husband was found to have vexatiously abused the court process by repeatedly pursuing legal action against his former wife. An Isaac Wunder order was made by the court against the husband which states that any legal proceedings against his wife and children will be halted. However, the court did not suspend all legal action from the husband; rather it ruled that further legal action would require a decision by a relevant court. This decision is significant because the Court established guidelines for when common law principles could be reinterpreted.

<i>P.F v G.OM</i> (Otherwise G.F) Irish Supreme Court case

P.F v G.O'M [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. 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.

<i>OConnell 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>J. McD v P.L and B.M</i> Irish Supreme Court case

J. McD v P.L and B.M[2007] IESC 28, [2008] ILRM 81 is an Irish Supreme Court case the rights of a sperm donor to access a child born through his donation. The Appellant, who was the biological donor, questioned whether he could be a guardian of the infant despite never having had a romantic relationship with the first named respondent who was the mother. The case raised important questions around the Irish legal definition of "family." The case is also important because the Supreme Court over-turned a High Court ruling that had relied on Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

<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>N.V.H v Minister for Justice & Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

<i>AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors, [2017] IESC 80, was an Irish Supreme Court case which arose from the judgment delivered by Cooke J in the High Court on 17 May 2012, due to the fact that the applicant AAA and her children were deported to Nigeria in 2011. The court held that "as a rule" there is no right to an oral hearing in an application for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds and subsidiary protection where there has already been oral hearings in relation to an application for asylum. This decision clarified the grounds under which a claim for subsidiary protection could be heard.

<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>Ryan v Governor of Midlands Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Ryan v Governor of Midlands Prison [2014] IESC 54 was a case in which the Irish supreme court ruled that, ordinarily, a Court order detaining a convicted individual that is not prima facie invalid should only be challenged through an appeal of the conviction or an application for judicial review rather than through an application for release under the constitutional principle of habeas corpus.

<i>DC v Director of Public Prosecutions</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>Child and Family Agency (Formerly Health Service Executive) v OA</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Child and Family Agency v O.A.[2015] IESC 52, also known as Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA, is an Irish Supreme Court case which determined the appropriateness of awarding costs in child care cases where there was an unsuccessful parental challenge to an application made by the Child and Family Agency (CFA). The Supreme Court established that there are circumstances where it might be suitable to award costs to unsuccessful parents who privately retained legal counsel; these being if the CFA "acted capriciously, arbitrarily or unreasonably in commencing or maintaining the proceedings", if "the outcome was particularly clear or compelling", or if it would be "particularly unjust towards the parents to award costs against them". It was stated that the District Court must outline its reasoning regarding a decision to award costs in such cases, holding that the Circuit Court should only reverse District Court decisions if the outlined principles and criteria are not followed.

<i>McNulty v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McNulty v DPP[2009] IESC 12; [2009] 3 IR 572 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the appellant had been previously charged with possession of controlled drugs with an intent to supply contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977; the case was heard in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court before Judge Michael White, where the jury were unable to reach a verdict and accordingly disagreed. The appellant claimed that the respondent had unfairly taken advantage of the jury's disagreement after what he claims was an incorrect decision by White J in allowing the admittance of additional evidence to make up for the "defects in proof at the first trial."

<i>GT v KAO</i> (Child abduction) Irish Supreme Court case

Gt v Kao[2007] IESC 55; [2008] 3 IR 567 is an Irish Supreme Court case which upheld the High Court's decision that, under article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, the appellant had acted unlawfully in taking her two children outside of Ireland without permission from the respondent.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "K. (C.) v. K. (J.) [2004] IESC 21 (31 March 2004)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 22 December 2019.
  2. 1 2 Richard McNamara, Frank Martin (2006). "Brussels Calling: The Unstoppable Europeanisation of Irish Family Law". Irish Journal of Family Law. 9 (3): 8–21.
  3. 1 2 3 4 "K. (C.) v. K. (J.) [2004] IESC 21 (31 March 2004)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 22 December 2019.
  4. ↑ Hogan, Morgan, Daly (2019). Administrative Law in Ireland. 5th ed. Round Hall.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. 1 2 3 [1975] I.R. 133
  6. 1 2 "AR v DR [2019] IEHC 246 (29 March 2019)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 22 December 2019.
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.
镜像站群系统 镜像站群系统 网站镜像克隆 批量镜像网站 镜像站群霸屏