A medical inspector had authority to interview only a husband and wife, and no one else, when preparing a report for nullity proceedings, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
However, Ms Justice Denham stressed that nothing in the Supreme Court's decision was intended to inhibit a court, if it was deemed appropriate, from giving additional authority to the medical inspector on the consent of both parties.
The court was delivering a judgment upholding a High Court decision that dismissed an appeal by a husband against a decision that third parties might not be interviewed by a medical inspector engaged in nullity proceedings that had been initiated by the husband in 1997.
The husband had presented a petition seeking a decree his marriage was null and void and of no legal effect. He contended that he and his wife had lacked the capacity to enter into and sustain a normal, lifelong relationship with each other as a result of their respective states of mind, mental conditions and emotional and psychological developments at the date of marriage.
The wife denied these claims. She argued the proceedings were an abuse of court process and claimed the husband was seeking to evade proceedings for judicial separation.
Separation proceedings had begun in 1996 and were adjourned until the nullity case was settled.
The husband sought an order appointing medical inspectors to examine the parties. In May 1997, on consent of both parties, the Master of the High Court ordered the action to go for trial before a judge. He also ordered a named psychiatrist to be appointed to carry out a psychiatric examination of the couple and report to the court in writing.
During one interview the husband requested that the psychiatrist speak to four of his friends and his brother. In March 1998 he sought a High Court order that the medical inspector should have liberty, if necessary, to interview people other than the couple. The wife objected.
The psychiatrist said interviews with informants were a standard practice in carrying out a psychiatric assessment when a personality disorder was suspected. It was for that reason he wished to interview other persons.
Last January the High Court decided the medical inspector should operate within the terms of the Master's order and report without interviewing third-party informants. It added that such a restricted inspection ensured the court remained in control of the inquiry.
The husband appealed that decision to the Supreme Court which yesterday upheld the High Court decision. Ms Justice Denham, with whom Mr Justice Murray and Mr Justice Geoghegan agreed, said while the medical inspector had indicated interviewing third parties was common practice in achieving a medical diagnosis, the present report was for the court before a court hearing.
To enable the medical inspector to interview people other than the couple would be to endorse a preliminary hearing by the doctor, the court found. This would cause serious difficulties in the running of the nullity action in court and take the action from the court and place it partially in the doctor's hands.
The medical evidence was an important aspect of the hearing. However, the determination was a judicial function and the evidence should be tendered in accordance with law and fair procedures.