the assertions of each it is logically more sound to first address the matters to which the respondent deposed.
SOME BACKGROUND ACCORDING TO THE RESPONDENT
43 He did not give an address in his affidavit. He said he was 37 years of age, that he migrated to Australia in 2018 and that he was awaiting residency.
44 He deposed to meeting the applicant in September 2023 on a dating site.
45 He deposed to the applicant moving into his residence within the first week of meeting. That was in October 2023, he asserted. He said he spoke to the applicant's mother, although he did not depose to the detail or contents of that or those conversations. He said the applicant began to send him a list of items he said the applicant wanted him to buy for her prior to marriage. He said he did not agree to the list of items. Yet he did not depose to the contents of any such conversation about marriage, especially when that conversation allegedly took place, who said what to whom, where and when the marriage would take place and who would be present to witness it or such like issues.
46 The respondent deposed to "focusing" (his word) on organising himself and the applicant in Australia and marrying in Australia before an "official ceremony in [Country D]" (his words). He did not elaborate on that assertion by deposing to, for example, who said what to whom and what he meant by an "official ceremony" in Country D.[1]
47 He said "we both agreed to these circumstances" yet he did not depose to what he and the applicant had allegedly agreed. He said that two began planning their wedding. Importantly, he did not depose to the following –
- (a) discussing with the applicant any religious requirements she may have had for the wedding; or
- (b) actually proposing marriage to the applicant, when that occurred, where it occurred, who said what to whom, whether he had informed the close friends of the couple of their engagement, whether the respondent had given the applicant some form of engagement gift such as a ring, whether any members of the family of either had indicated an intention to travel from Country D to witness any such marriage, whether
- ↑ The use of "official ceremony in [Country D]" raised the issue of the status of any ceremony in Australia not being official. The point was not pursued in cross-examination, however.
