JUDICIAL APPEALS INTO THE VALIDY OF A MARRIAGE PERFORMED BY A MARRIAGE CELEBRANT

CASE

DATE

COURT

DECISION

CARROLL v SINCLAIR - BC201150537

24.11.
2011

Family court of Australia

Appeal dismisssed

FAMILY LAW — NULLITY — Where the wife was 18 years at the time of marriage — Where the wife was a minor at the time she signed the notice of intention to marry document — Where the wife alleges that the dates on the notice of intention to marry document were fraudulently changed to comply with the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) — Where the wife alleges that the husband married her for immigration purposes — Marriage valid – appeal  dismissed.

W and T, In Marriage of

7.5.
1998

Family court of Australia

Appeal

dismissed

Family law — Marriage — Grounds on which marriages are void — Marriage solemnised otherwise than in accordance with provisions

Whether marriage solemnised by or in presence of an authorised celebrant pursuant to s 41 Marriage Act 1961 (Cth).

Marriage valid – appeal dismissed

BERDA & KALIL - BC201250933

6.8.
2012

Family court of Australia

Appeal

dismissed

[1] By an application filed 2 February 2012, the applicant seeks an order that the marriage between her and the respondent be annulled. 6] The effect of the evidence on behalf of the applicant is that the Notice of Intended Marriage is false in the sense that it purports to indicate that notice was given when, in fact, it was not. The Notice also purports to indicate that it was signed so as to provide notice some three months prior to the marriage when in fact it was signed on the date of the marriage, namely in May 2011. – appeal dismissed.

MEARS & MEARS - BC201250167

6.9.
2011

Family court of Australia

Appeal

dismissed

FAMILY LAW — APPEAL — DECLARATION — Validity of marriage — where the trial Judge made a declaration of validity of the marriage as sought by the wife and husband — where the wife appealed against the making of the declaration — where the wife alleged that the trial Judge applied “a wrong principle of law” and submitted that her marriage to her husband is not a valid marriage because one of the witnesses at the marriage was at that time under the age of 18 — appeal dismissed.

WYATT & HSIN-LU - BC201250423

24.1
.2012

Family court of Australia

FAMILY LAW — ANNULMENT — Application granted.

That pursuant to s 51 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the court declares that the marriage that took place between Mr Wyatt and Ms Hsin-Lu on 3 October 2010 is invalid.

The dilemma is that the ramifications for such an order are that the applicant faces the prospect of being prosecuted for bigamy, not to mention the potential false statement to the marriage celebrant

[2] That the Registry Manager provide a copy of this order and the reasons for judgment this day to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

WOLD & KLEPPIR             [2009] FamCA 178 BRC 3211of             2008

6.2.
2009

Family court of Australia

Appeal dismissed

FAMILY LAW – DECLARATION – Validity of Marriage – Husband claims mistaken as to the nature of the ceremony performed – Whether Iman performed a conversion to the Muslim faith or a marriage ceremony – Reject that Husband was mistaken

FAMILY LAW – DECLARATION – Validity of marriage – potentially polygamous marriage – Polygamy invalid under Australian law – Distinguish English case of Sowa v Sowa [1961] 1 All ER 687 law – No underlying positive law to allow polygamous marriages – Not potentially polygamous

Dimitriou and Others v Homsy

23.5.
1997

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Appeal dismissed

Family Law and Child Welfare — Marriage — Grounds to avoid — Consent obtained by "fraud" — How pleaded — No distinction to be drawn between "invalidity" of marriage and marriage being "void or nullity"

NGO v NGO - BC201051183

12.10.
2010

Family court of Australia

Appeal upheld. (CTH) Family Law Act 1975 MARRIAGE DECLARED VOID - CELEBRANT

CTH) Family Law Act 1975 MARRIAGE DECLARED VOID – CELEBRANT

ORDERS

1.That the marriage ceremony as between the applicant Ms Ngo and the respondent Mr Ngo that took place on ... July 2010 at B Street, Melbourne, Victoria was void.

2.That the application filed on 30 August 2010 is otherwise dismissed.

3.That the Registry Manager of the Melbourne Registry of the Family Court of Australia refer to the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia the following:

(a) a transcript of the proceedings this day;

(b) a copy of the reasons for judgment this day; and

(c) a copy of all documents on the court file,

for consideration of an investigation into the conduct of marriage celebrant Mr DO. Marriage Celebrant