Jump to content

Page:Ryba & Achthoven (2024, FedCFamC1F).pdf/4

From Wikisource
This page has been validated.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILSON J

INTRODUCTION

1 By initiating application filed 21 May 2024, the applicant applied for orders under the provisions of the Marriage Act declaring her purported marriage to the respondent a nullity for being contrary to s 23B of the Marriage Act.

2 Specifically, the applicant contended that her putative marriage to the respondent was void by reason of the applicant's consent not being real consent in the manner provided for in s 23B(1)(d).

3 The respondent disputed that the marriage ceremony was other than regular. He said a valid and subsisting marriage resulted. He sought orders dismissing the applicant's application for a declaration of nullity.

4 The impugned marriage ceremony was conducted in December 2023. A marriage certificate was generated in relation to the marriage. By force of s 45(3) of the Marriage Act, the marriage certificate provides conclusive evidence that the formalities of marriage had been complied with.

5 Each of the applicant and respondent is of Country D heritage. The applicant is a health professional. The respondent arrived in Australia a few years ago in order to study.

6 The applicant asserts that she believed that when participating in the alleged wedding ceremony conducted in December 2023, she was acting in a video that the respondent was producing as part of his social media activities (on her version of events) the alleged wedding being no more than a mere dramatisation of a hypothetical wedding.

7 The respondent submitted that prior to the alleged wedding ceremony, the applicant freely and unconditionally accepted the respondent's proposal to marry, that a legally authorised wedding celebrant officiated over the wedding ceremony, that it was validly and regularly witnessed, that it was no hoax, that a wedding ring was produced and that a valid wedding certificate was also produced.

8 A factual dispute emerged in respect of the events subsequent to the impugned wedding ceremony about whether the applicant and the respondent actually lived together as a married


Ryba & Achthoven [2024] FedCFamC1F 674
1