Jump to content

Page:Ryba & Achthoven (2024, FedCFamC1F).pdf/16

From Wikisource
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
a wedding reception was to be held, its costs, how that cost would be met from their existing salaries and where they would live once married.

48 The respondent's assertion that "we both agreed to these circumstances" was so bereft of detail as to be near meaningless. To most people, marriage is one of the most significant events in his or her life and the details associated with the marriage with its long-term consequences are of critical importance.

49 That respondent's superficial assertion that "we both agreed to these circumstances" was so nebulous that it caused me to scrutinise very carefully everything the respondent said in this case for accuracy, verification, corroboration and plausibility.

50 Between paragraphs 5 and 12 of his affidavit the respondent gave three dates. The first was the date on which he and the applicant met (in September 2023), the second was the date he said he and the applicant commenced cohabitation (in October 2023) and the third was in late December 2023 being the date he said he proposed marriage to the applicant.

51 The applicant agreed[1] that in late December 2023 the respondent proposed marriage to her at an entertainment venue and that he gave the applicant a diamond ring that night.

52 The respondent deposed to he and the applicant agreeing that the next day they would marry at what he described as an "intimate ceremony in Sydney".

53 Pausing there, in his affidavit he omitted any explanation of a large number of issues arising from that limited chronology. Those included –

(a) why it was necessary or desirable for them to participate in a marriage ceremony the very next day after the applicant accepted his proposal of marriage;
(b) what travel and accommodation arrangements he had made and when those arrangements had been made to enable the two to travel so expeditiously interstate;
(c) given that the applicant and respondent lived in Melbourne, why it was necessary or desirable for them to marry interstate;
(d) what arrangements had been made (if any) in relation to a reception after the ceremony;
  1. T 36 L 24.

Ryba & Achthoven [2024] FedCFamC1F 674
13