Berda and Kalil

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Berda (the applicant) sought an annulment of her marriage to Mr Kalil (the respondent), who did not appear. The dispute centred on the validity of the marriage, with the applicant alleging that the Notice of Intended Marriage contained false information regarding its signing date and the circumstances under which it was completed.

The court was required to determine whether the alleged falsities in the Notice of Intended Marriage rendered the marriage void and thus grounds for annulment under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and the *Marriage Act 1961* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider the effect of section 48 of the *Marriage Act 1961* on a marriage where the Notice of Intended Marriage was purportedly completed incorrectly.

Justice Murphy reasoned that while section 48(1) of the *Marriage Act 1961* states that a marriage solemnised otherwise than in accordance with the preceding provisions is not valid, this is subject to section 48(2). Section 48(2)(a) explicitly provides that a marriage is not invalid by reason of a false statement, defect, or error in the Notice of Intended Marriage. The court found that the applicant's evidence regarding the Notice of Intended Marriage fell squarely within this exemption.

Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application for a declaration of nullity, finding it to be fatally flawed. The court noted that if the applicant's intention was to end the marriage, the appropriate application would be for dissolution.