FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ZAU & HUANG | [2015] FamCA 873 |
| FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – where a declaration of nullity is sought – where the parties were married in China – where the parties underwent a second marriage ceremony in Australia – where the parties sought a divorce order in China and it was granted – where consideration is given to circumstances in which a marriage is found it be void – where it is found that the Australian marriage is void – where the matter had been adjourned for the purpose of proper service and certified Chinese translation of documents. |
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 51, 102
Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) ss 23, 23B, 88C, 88D, 88G, 113
| In the marriage of Kapadia (1991) 103 FLR 470 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Zau |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Huang |
| INTERVENOR: |
| FILE NUMBER: | ADC | 2033 | of | 2015 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 13 October 2015 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Adelaide |
| PLACE HEARD: | Adelaide |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Berman J |
| HEARING DATE: | 13 October 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Konieczka |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | M K Legal & Migration |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: |
Orders
That the marriage between Mr Zau and Ms Huang solemnised on … 2014, be declared null and void.
That the following documents be Exhibit “1” in the proceedings:
(a) letter to the wife dated 17 July 2015;
(b) affidavit of husband filed 9 June 2015; and
(c)order of this Court dated 26 August 2015, together with Chinese translations.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Zau & Huang has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE |
FILE NUMBER: ADC 2033 of 2015
| Mr Zau |
Applicant
And
| Ms Huang |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
By way of Initiating Application filed 9 June 2015, Mr Zau, the applicant husband, seeks an order that the marriage between Mr Zau and Ms Huang solemnised in early 2015 be declared invalid and nullified. In effect, what is sought by the applicant husband is a declaration of nullity.
The circumstances and background to the application are in some respects unusual and create some interesting technicalities in terms of whether in the circumstances as presented by the applicant husband a declaration of nullity can be given. As I have indicated to the husband’s counsel, I propose to make the declaration as sought, but because of the interesting factual matrix which underpins the application, it is of some value that reasons be given.
The husband was born in 1986 in a province in China. As at the date of the application, he is some 29 years of age. He lives and works in Adelaide and has employment. He came to Australia in 2001 by way of a Higher Education Student Visa in order to study. He gained permanent residency in late 2008 and now presents to the Court as an Australian citizen, that having been conferred upon him…
Continue reading Zau & Huang
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Zau & Huang [2015] FamCA 873
- Case
- [2015] FamCA 873
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the marriage between Mr Zau and Ms Huang was valid at its inception, or if it was void ab initio. This required the Court to consider the circumstances surrounding the marriage and the legal requirements for a valid marriage under Australian law.
Berman J determined that the marriage was void. The reasoning, as evidenced by the orders made, focused on the validity of the marriage itself, leading to the declaration that the marriage was null and void. The Court’s orders included the formal declaration of nullity and the admission of specific documents as exhibits, including correspondence and affidavits relevant to the determination of the marriage's validity.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the marriage between Mr Zau and Ms Huang solemnised on … 2014, be declared null and void.
2.
That the following documents be Exhibit “1” in the proceedings:
(a) letter to the wife dated 17 July 2015;
(b) affidavit of husband filed 9 June 2015; and
(c) order of this Court dated 26 August 2015, together with Chinese translations.
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.