Rodrigues v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages

Case [2020] NSWCATAD 267


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rodrigues v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2020] NSWCATAD 267
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 30 October 2020
Decision date: 30 October 2020
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: P H Molony, Senior Member
Decision:

(1) The Tribunal dispenses with a hearing in this matter in accordance with section 50(3) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

(2) The decision of the Registrar to refuse to correct the applicant’s name in his marriage certificate is affirmed.

Catchwords:

BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES – marriage registration - name changed after marriage – application to correct marriage register to reflect changed name refused– name change does not have retrospective effect on earlier marriage certificate – decision affirmed.

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995

Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Regulation 2017

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Marriage Act 1961 (Cth)

Marriage Regulation 2017 (Cth).

Cases Cited:

Charlwood v New South Wales Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2019] NSWCATAD 69

Crawford v Davidson-Crawford [2019] NSWSC 72

Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60.

McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57; (1984) 1 FCR 354

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Eric Rodriguez (Applicant)
Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (Self Represented)
Department of Customer Services (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/00214710
Publication restriction: None

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. On 17 July 2020 Eric Rodriguez applied to the Tribunal for administrative review of the decision made by the Registrar of the New South Wales Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages not to amend his name, on his certificate of marriage, from Eric Jason Rodriguez Marchant to Eric Jason Rodriguez.

  2. When Mr Rodriguez was born in New South Wales his birth certificate showed his full name as Eric Jason Rodriguez Marchant.

  3. Mr Rodriguez was married in Sydney in February this year. His name on the marriage certificate is recorded as Eric Jason Rodriguez Marchant. When the marriage was registered in New South Wales, his name was recorded in the register of marriages as Eric Jason Rodriguez Marchant.

  4. Mr Rodriguez says that prior to his marriage he had contemplated formally changing his name from Eric Jason Rodrigue Marchant to Eric Jason Rodriguez. He was advised by his marriage celebrant not to do so to avoid any confusion. Before the marriage, he and his future wife were purchasing a property. They had applied for assistance under the First Home Deposit Scheme. He was advised by his bank and lender not to change his name at that time to avoid “any cancellations”.

  5. On 26 March 2020, Mr Rodriguez applied to register a change of name on his birth certificate. On 7 April 2020, a change of Mr Rodriguez’s name was recorded. A birth certificate issued on that date shows that Mr Rodriguez’s name as Eric Jason Rodriguez, but is endorsed as follows:

Continue reading Rodrigues v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rodrigues v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2020] NSWCATAD 267
Case
[2020] NSWCATAD 267
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rodrigues v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages involves the applicant, Mr Rodrigues, who sought to have his name corrected on his marriage certificate to reflect a name change that occurred after the marriage. The Registrar refused the request, and Mr Rodrigues appealed this decision to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the Registrar's decision to not amend the marriage certificate to include the changed name was lawful and justified.

The Tribunal considered the relevant statutory provisions and administrative guidelines concerning marriage registration and the alteration of names post-marriage. It examined whether the refusal to amend the marriage certificate was consistent with the applicable laws and policies. The Tribunal found that under the prevailing legal framework, a name change following marriage does not retroactively affect earlier documents, including marriage certificates. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Registrar's decision was in accordance with the law, as the name change did not have retrospective effect on the marriage certificate. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Registrar's refusal to amend the marriage certificate to reflect the changed name.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Tribunal dispenses with a hearing in this matter in accordance with section 50(3) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

(2) The decision of the Registrar to refuse to correct the applicant’s name in his marriage certificate is affirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

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.