- (e) whether the applicant's parents had been informed of the intended marriage ceremony and, more importantly, what their reaction was to his proposal in late December 2023 and a marriage the very next day;
- (f) what arrangements had been made and when for a wedding celebrant to be involved;
- (g) who completed the notice of intended marriage document and why the date 20 November 2023 appeared on it;
- (h) whether a maid-of-honour was to be involved and who that was to be;
- (i) whether any discussion took place between the applicant and respondent and if so when about the applicant purchasing a bridal gown;
- (j) who was to pay the wedding celebrant for his services that day; and
- (k) who the witnesses to the ceremony would be and their relationship to the applicant and respondent.
54 As has already been mentioned, in the trial of this proceeding a video of the impugned ceremony was played. The respondent did not depose to any celebrations immediately following the impugned ceremony by which the fact of the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was allegedly celebrated. Instead, the respondent deposed to returning to Melbourne three days after the ceremony. He gave no evidence of the events between the impugned ceremony in late December 2023 and the day they travelled back to Melbourne. He did not depose to even telephoning the applicant's parents on or after the alleged ceremony to announce that he and the applicant were married. He did not depose to informing his own parents either. Instead, he deposed to paying $3,000 for the wedding and $6,900 for a wedding ring. He did not say what costs were associated with the $3,000 expenditure nor did he exhibit a receipt of his alleged purchase of the wedding ring.
55 The respondent asserted that he and the applicant lived together in his home from a date prior to their engagement or marriage. The applicant denied that assertion, maintaining that she kept her residence in Suburb H. The respondent gave no evidence that with a view to saving money he endeavoured to persuade the applicant to terminate her tenancy of her Suburb H residence from October 2023. He did not say that upon the return of the applicant and the respondent to Melbourne in late December 2023 the two lived at his home as husband and wife. He gave next to no information of their married life together from the alleged ceremony in late December 2023 up until February 2024 when, according to the respondent, the applicant discussed annulment of their marriage.
