Valjean and Rheem

[2016] FamCA 1182

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VALJEAN & RHEEM [2016] FamCA 1182

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY

APPLICANT: Mr Valjean

RESPONDENT: Ms Rheem

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2166 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 24 May 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Carew J

HEARING DATE: 24 May 2016

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Pendergast

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Pope

Orders

1. It is declared that the marriage solemnised between Mr Valjean and Ms Rheem (also known as Ms Valjean) on … 2012 is void.

2. A decree of nullity in relation to that marriage is granted.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Valjean & Rheem has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2166 of 2016

Mr Valjean

Applicant

And

Ms Rheem

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for a decree of nullity of marriage. The Application is made pursuant to section 51 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and the only ground upon which a decree of nullity may be granted is that the marriage is void.

2. Section 23B of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) relevantly provides that a marriage is void where either of the parties is, at the time of the marriage, lawfully married to some other person.

3. It is common ground that the parties to this application undertook a marriage ceremony at B Town in the State of Queensland, in 2012.  It is also common ground that, at that time, the respondent was already married to another person and had not been divorced.

4. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that at the time of the marriage in 2012 the respondent was lawfully married to Mr C and thus the marriage entered into by the parties on in 2012 is void.

5. I note that the parties to this application purported to consent to the decree of nullity, however, in my view it is a matter about which the Court needs to make the appropriate finding, which I have done in this case.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Carew delivered on 24 May 2016.

Associate: 

Date:  24 May 2016