Jain & Hingston

In the matter of *Jain & Hingston*, Ms Jain applied for a decree of nullity of marriage against Mr Hingston. The applicant's case was that she would not have consented to marry the respondent had she known he had been previously married for 14 years. The respondent failed to file a response, but did file an affidavit admitting to making fraudulent statements and providing fraudulent documents.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the fraud alleged by the applicant, specifically concerning the respondent's prior marital history, constituted a sufficient basis for a decree of nullity under section 23B of the *Marriage Act 1961* (Cth). This required the court to consider the scope of "fraud" as contemplated by the Act, particularly in light of previous judicial interpretations.

Howard J dismissed the application for a decree of nullity. His Honour found that the fraud relied upon by the applicant did not fall within the types of fraud contemplated by section 23B of the *Marriage Act 1961* (Cth), which are limited to fraud concerning the identity of a party or the nature of the marriage ceremony. The court noted that while the respondent had admitted to fraudulent conduct, this conduct did not vitiate the marriage in a manner recognised by the relevant legislation for nullity. The court ordered that the Registrar forward the reasons for judgment, transcript, and exhibits to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of potential prosecution of the respondent, particularly in light of his admitted creation of a false document purporting to be a decree of nullity from a UK court.