GALEA & PETRONI

[2011] FamCA 559

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GALEA & PETRONI [2011] FamCA 559

FAMILY LAW - NULLITY

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Galea

RESPONDENT: Ms Petroni

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2752 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 1 July 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 1 July 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

ORDERS

1. That the applicant have leave to proceed without notice to the respondent.

2. That the marriage solemnized at Adelaide on … September 2000 between the parties is declared to be absolutely null and void.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Galea & Petroni is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2752 of 2010

Mr Galea

Applicant

And

Ms Petroni

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application filed by Mr Galea on 15 April 2011 asking the Court to declare his marriage to Ms Petroni to have been invalid.  On the last occasion, which was 1 June, I adjourned the matter to today to enable Mr Galea to endeavour to serve the application because he had not done so.  I am satisfied on the evidence before me that at best, the documents have been brought to the attention of Ms Petroni, because they were posted to …, W Street, City 1, Malta the best part of a month ago, at which address Ms Petroni resided up until the time that the parties came to Australia in 2000, when they married.

2. It is appropriate in the circumstances that Mr Galea be given an opportunity to proceed with his application in the absence of the respondent. 

3. The most unusual feature of this case is that during the six-year period prior to September 2000, Mr Galea and Ms Petroni knew each other and were courting in Malta.  In hindsight, things might have been different had he then known what he knows now. 

4. At no stage was he introduced to any family members of Ms Petroni, and she was living on what is the equivalent of Centrelink payments.  They were presumably courting one another for the purposes of ultimately marrying, because that occurred in Australia in September 2000.  The difficulty was that Ms Petroni was not able to marry, because she was already married to another person. 

5. The evidence that supports that conclusion is the fact that after they married in Adelaide, in South Australia in September 2000, they went back to Malta for a visit, where ironically enough Maltese authorities found Ms Petroni had married, and she was arrested.  She was prosecuted by the Maltese authorities with the offence of bigamy. 

6. I have before me the transcript of the proceedings by the Maltese court, which is somewhat confusing, but I am satisfied that it was serious enough that the Maltese authorities took the matter to Court, and a Judge in Malta sentenced her to 18 months imprisonment.  That sentence was imposed in January 2003 for the offence of bigamy. 

7. Mr Galea has satisfied me that since that day, he has not seen Ms Petroni nor heard from her.  He is a man of 67 years of age.  He has throat cancer, and his main concern after all this time is to die with the knowledge that Ms Petroni cannot touch his estate.  That is a factor that I can take into account in the service waiver issues. 

8. I am satisfied in the circumstances and on all of the evidence that Ms Petroni on … September 2000 was not eligible to marry Mr Galea, and as a consequence, the marriage must be declared invalid.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 1 July 2011.

Associate: 

Date:  13 July 2011