Zacharia & Paradisio - [2008] FamCA 688

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ZACHARIA & PARADISIO

[2008] FamCA 688

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Application for declaration of nullity of marriage – whether consent of wife obtained by duress or fraud – whether wife mistaken as to identity of husband – no grounds for nullity of marriage established – application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 51
Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) s 23B & 48

C v C (Nullity) (1998) FLC 92-824
In the marriage of S (1980) FLC 90-820
In the marriage or Teves and Campomayor (1995) FLC 92-578
In the marriage of Deniz (1977) FLC 90-252
In the marriage of Otway (1987) FLC 91-807
Osman and Mourrali (1990) FLC 92-111
In the marriage of Hosking (1995) FLC 92-579
K and S [2003] FamCA 136
K and A [2006] FamCA 305
A v B [2006] FamCA 161
C v C [1942] NZLR 356
T and H [2001] FamCA 785
M and Y [2005] FamCA 149
Aird & Hamilton-Reid [2007] FamCA 4

APPLICANT:

MS ZACHARIA

RESPONDENT:

MS PARADISIO

FILE NUMBER:

ADC

2235

2008

DATE DELIVERED:

1 AUGUST 2008
(In Chambers)

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF:

BURR J

HEARING DATE:

24 JULY 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Not relevant

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Applicant in person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

No appearance

Orders

That the wife’s Application for a declaration of nullity of marriage filed on 6 June 2008 is dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2235 of 2008

MS ZACHARIA

Applicant

And

MR PARADISIO

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

I have before me for determination an Application for declaration of nullity of a marriage under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
On 6 June 2008 the wife, Ms Zacharia, filed an Application pursuant to the Act that the marriage between herself and the husband Mr Paradisio on … January 2008 be declared null and void.
The husband was served with the wife’s Application and accompanying affidavit on 14 June 2008. He has not filed anything by way of Response nor was he present at the hearing on 24 July 2008. I have determined that I will proceed with the wife’s Application in the husband’s absence.
At the hearing on 24 July 2008 the wife was unrepresented and gave oral evidence in support of her application.

Background

The wife was born in August 1962 and is hence now aged nearly 46 years. The husband was born in December 1959 and is now aged 48 years.
The wife is employed as a scientist and has two daughters from a previous relationship, aged 17 and 22 years.
The husband is unemployed. The husband has previously been married and has four children from that relationship. The two younger children, aged 8 and 9 years, spend time with the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Zacharia & Paradisio

Details

AGLC: Zacharia & Paradisio [2008] FamCA 688
Case: [2008] FamCA 688
Decision Date: 1 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Zacharia & Paradisio*, heard by Burr J, the wife sought a declaration of nullity of marriage. The precise nature of the dispute leading to this application is not detailed, but the core of the proceedings concerned the validity of the marriage.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the marriage between the parties was void ab initio, thereby entitling the wife to a declaration of nullity. This required the court to examine the circumstances surrounding the marriage and determine if any grounds for nullity were established under the relevant family law provisions.

Burr J dismissed the wife's application for a declaration of nullity of marriage. The reasons for this dismissal are not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the outcome signifies that the court found no legal basis to declare the marriage void. Consequently, the marriage was upheld as valid.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the wife’s Application for a declaration of nullity of marriage filed on 6 June 2008 is dismissed.

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.