Man who took discrimination claim after annulment said he and his former wife ‘had some lovely years’

A Catholic Church body has successfully defended a discrimination claim after arguing that a man should have appealed to Pope Francis in Rome rather than the Workplace Relations Commission over his alleged treatment by a marriage tribunal.

The man, a lay litigant, had brought a claim alleging discrimination on the grounds of disability under the Equal Status Act 2000 against an unidentified Catholic Church body as the convenor of a regional marriage tribunal under the Code of Canon Law.

He said he had been “insulted” by the declaration of annulment of marriage in January 2021, which he said had depicted him as being financially and domestically dependent.

[ Woman loses appeal aimed at having marriage annulled ]

The church body said in submissions that its marriage tribunal and appeals body had found the man’s marriage “null”, referring to a “grave lack of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations” on the part of both the man and his ex-wife.

Family affairs: How Ireland’s newly rich are putting money to work in secretive firms

---

All You Need Is Death review: Singular Irish horror is a symphony of weirdness

---

The Corrs’ manager’s secluded south Dublin home on an acre for €4.25m

---

Tactical breakdown: How Mickey Harte’s side have evolved into Derry 2.0

---

In a decision published this morning, the Workplace Relations Commission wrote that it had no jurisdiction to examine the adjudicative work of a Church marriage tribunal under equality law – and found that the option of an appeal to the Pope was the only mechanism left to the claimant to challenge the annulment.

Denying discrimination, a barrister for the church body said the man’s discrimination claim was “motivated… by unhappiness with the declaration of annulment” but had not pursued an appeal to the ultimate appeal authority on the question of a marriage annulment case – the court of the Pope in Rome.

In evidence to an equality hearing last July, the man said he had been “wrongly depicted” and that his “motives” for marriage were “unfairly reported” in the annulment declaration.

He said the report caused him “weeks of unease” as it was “too personal” and that despite looking for an apology in February 2021, he did not get one.

The complainant then lodged an appeal of the annulment to the National Marriage Tribunal in parallel with starting the process for an Equal Status Act complaint to the WRC.

The man said he wanted to show “he was not the person depicted in the report he received” and said he and his former wife “had some lovely years”.

He said he wanted an “honest, unbiased report where all the evidence was included”.

Rosemary Mallon BL, who appeared for the church body instructed by Mason Hayes and Curran solicitors, said the respondent accepted the complainant had a disability in line with the Equal Status Act, but denied discrimination.

The exact details of the man’s disability were not alluded to in the decision.

Ms Mallon said the WRC claim was “motivated… by unhappiness with the declaration of annulment”, which she said had been upheld on appeal to the National Marriage Tribunal in April 2021.

“The complainant had not advanced this further forward to the head of the church, Papa Francesco in Rome,” she added.

[ Pope Francis says conservatives exploited death of Benedict ]

Ms Mallon said the annulment process was not subject to judicial review and that the WRC lacked jurisdiction in the matter.

A priest identified only as Father A, who presided over the marriage tribunal, said he was “sorry to see the complainant so upset” but that he had a duty to “do justice to both sides” in an annulment case.

He told the WRC he had a “great admiration” for how the complainant had lived his life but that he “had not discriminated against him”.

Cross-examining the priest, the complainant said he had been depicted in a “diminished role” and asked what evidence he had relied on in coming to the conclusion.

Father A replied that there was “a greater probative value in sworn evidence” and disputed setting aside the complainant’s responses during the annulment proceedings.

“I respected you,” Father A told the man.

In her decision, WRC adjudicating officer Patsy Doyle noted that a Catholic marriage annulment was a canon law process.

She had to determine, for the purposes of the case, whether or not a church court constituted a “service” as defined by the Equal Status Act, as a marriage tribunal was not expressly exempted under the Act.

She found the marriage tribunal’s administrative functions – in terms of “access to a building or organising a hearing” – were a service under equality legislation.

Ms Doyle wrote that a marriage tribunal’s decision-making function was “outside that definition”.

“While I accept that the Marriage Tribunal does not exercise a quasi-judicial decision-making function subject to judicial review, I find that it is nonetheless operating an important adjudicative function built on discretionary decision making, which places it outside of the parameters of ‘service’, she wrote.

Ms Doyle found that the heart of the complaint brought before her was that the man had received less favourable treatment before the ecclesiastical tribunal’s adjudicative function and not the “administrative” side covered by the Act.

“I accept that the complainant is covered by the relevant ground of disability. However, I do not have jurisdiction to make a finding on the core aspect of his complaint that remarks made in the report of decision on religious nullity constituted discrimination. The case has fallen on that step,” she wrote.

“He was clear that he was not refused the service or denied reasonable accommodation. He participated fully in the process,” she wrote.

Ms Doyle said the complainant’s reference to having experienced stress “was a normal reaction in a challenging environment” and that he had “did not have difficulty” in making his application, accessing the building or explaining his case.

She found the complainant “has not made out a prima facie case and he cannot succeed”.