Futiya & Medved

Case [2025] FedCFamC1F 244

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Futiya & Medved [2025] FedCFamC1F 244

File number(s): SYC 8494 of 2024
Judgment of: SIMPSON J
Date of judgment: 16 April 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – where the husband seeks a decree of nullity – where the wife did not participate in the hearing – husband’s disappointment with the marriage – where the husband submits that the reasons for which the wife married him are not genuine – where the husband accepts he entered into the marriage freely and consensually – where the husband accepts he was not mistaken as to the nature of the marriage ceremony – where the husband accepts he understood the effect of being married – husband’s misunderstanding of duress in the context of nullity – no ground of nullity established – application for a decree of nullity dismissed.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 48

Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) s 23B

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 2.49

Family Law Regulations 2024 (Cth) Pt 10 Div 2

Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters  
Cases cited:

Cisek & Ghanem [2023] FedCFamC1F 293

Hamwi & Omar [2012] FamCAFC 174

Hosking & Hosking (1995) FLC 92-579

Jain & Hingston [2021] FamCA 644

Osman & Mourrali (1990) FLC 92-111
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 38
Date of hearing: 10 April 2025
Place: Sydney
Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Gaetani of Coutts Lawyers & Conveyancers
For the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear

ORDERS

SYC 8494 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:

MR FUTIYA

Applicant
AND:

MS MEDVED

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SIMPSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Initiating Application filed on 28 October 2024 be dismissed.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Futiya & Medved has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SIMPSON J:

  1. By way of an Initiating Application filed 28 October 2024, the applicant husband, Mr Futiya (“the husband”), seeks a declaration that the marriage entered into between he and the respondent wife, Ms Medved (“the wife”) is a nullity.

  2. The husband relies upon his…

Continue reading Futiya & Medved

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Futiya & Medved [2025] FedCFamC1F 244
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1F 244
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before Simpson J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia concerned an application by Mr Futiya for a decree of nullity of his marriage to Ms Medved. Mr Futiya, aged 67, and Ms Medved, aged 40, married in early 2024 but separated after a month. The wife did not participate in the proceedings. Mr Futiya alleged that the marriage was not genuine and sought to nullify it on the basis that Ms Medved's motivations for marrying him were not sincere. He accepted that he entered into the marriage freely and consensually, understood the nature of the marriage ceremony and its effects, but claimed a misunderstanding of the concept of duress in the context of nullity.

The court was required to determine whether Mr Futiya had established any grounds for a decree of nullity under the Family Law Act 1975. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the marriage was voidable due to duress or any other reason that would render the marriage null and void. The court noted that Mr Futiya's evidence suggested that while he felt pressured to marry, he did so willingly and with full understanding of the marriage's implications. Simpson J concluded that Mr Futiya's claims did not meet the legal threshold for nullity. The court found that Mr Futiya's dissatisfaction with the marriage and his belief that Ms Medved's motivations were not genuine did not constitute grounds for nullity. The husband's acceptance of entering the marriage freely and consensually, and his understanding of its nature and effects, further undermined his claim.

Simpson J dismissed the application for a decree of nullity, finding that no ground for nullity had been established. The court's decision highlighted the importance of a clear understanding of the legal requirements for nullity and the difference between dissatisfaction with a marriage and grounds that would render it voidable. The final order was that the Initiating Application filed by Mr Futiya on 28 October 2024 be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 8494 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR FUTIYA

Applicant

AND:

MS MEDVED

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SIMPSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Initiating Application filed on 28 October 2024 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

The husband relies upon his Initiating Application and an affidavit, sworn on 28 October 2024. BACKGROUND The husband was born in 1957 and is 67 years old. The wife was born in 1984 and is 40 years old. The parties married in Suburb B, NSW in early 2024 and their Marriage Certificate was admitted and marked as Exhibit A. Final separation occurred on 17 March 2024. The husband deposes to becoming aware of the wife in or around December 2023 through people who were part of his church community. In early January 2024, he met the wife, along with her daughter and one of his friends. The wife did not speak English and the friend assisted to provide interpretation of their discussions. The husband was advised, in that discussion, that the wife “was rich and she wants to pay $60,000 to get married”. The husband indicates that he said “let me think about it” as he did not want to embarrass the wife, in front of her child, by saying no. Subsequent discussions occurred and the husband deposes to “dating” the wife and then experiencing “pressure” from the wife to marry. He attended upon an immigration lawyer with the wife in early February 2024. The husband says he remained reluctant to marry and pointed out to the wife reasons why she should not marry him (including their 26 year age difference and certain challenges to his health). He says the wife responded to the effect “I love you and I want to get married”. He says he was convinced as to her sentiment and agreed to marry. He was not paid any funds to marry the wife. One week into their marriage, the husband indicated to the wife that it “is not working out” and he advised her of his unhappiness. He sets out in his affidavit that following their marriage, the parties did not share a bedroom (and, I infer, were not sexually intimate) and that the wife effectively lived in a bedroom, separate to him, with her child. None of the household tasks were shared between the parties; each took care of themselves including meal preparation. The husband deposes to becoming aware, after marriage, that he was the immigration sponsor for the wife’s child. He states that he had not agreed to provide that sponsorship (which has since been cancelled). Separation occurred on 17 March 2024 when the husband concluded that the marriage was “not working out” and he advised the wife of his requirement that she leave. The husband deposes to the wife leaving Australia in early 2024 and to him not having had communication with her since then.SERVICE The husband lodged an Application in a Proceeding (and supporting affidavit by a clerk employed in the office of his solicitors) on 9 April 2025 seeking to dispense with the requirement to serve other documents upon the wife as required by subsequent orders made in this matter prior to the hearing. Despite the irregularities in service I have outlined below, I advised the husband’s solicitor that I was content to hear his application and that I would address issues relating to service in these reasons.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.