Page:Ryba & Achthoven (2024, FedCFamC1F).pdf/18

56 The applicant relied on an affidavit in reply, made in opposition to the respondent's affidavit. The following matters were raised by the applicant in her second affidavit, made by her on 26 September 2024 –

(a) she denied moving into the respondent's residence with him, saying instead that throughout her relationship with the respondent she maintained her apartment in Suburb H;

(b) she denied the respondent's assertion that he purchased a motor vehicle for her;

(c) she paid a $500 deposit and the balance, assisted by the respondent only insofar as he provided the balance which the applicant paid back to him in full;

(d) she denied consenting to a sham marriage;

(e) the respondent retook the ring he gave the applicant; and

(f) she did not travel to Sydney in November 2023 nor did she have any form of contact with the celebrant prior to the alleged ceremony in late December 2023.

MATTERS ARISING FROM THE APPLICANT'S CROSS-EXAMINATION

57 The applicant was cross-examined with vigour but also courtesy. The following were the more important matters that emerged from the answers she gave to the questions put to her in cross-examination –

(a) she disputed that the respondent gave her a car as a gift in 2024 and gave evidence that she purchased the vehicle in early 2024 by paying a deposit of $500;

(b) she and the respondent did not open a joint bank account to finance holidays and living expenses;

(c) having accepted the respondent's marriage proposal she expected to have a marriage ceremony that was in accordance with her culture;

(d) it was likely to take a couple of months for her parents to be present at any such marriage celebration;

(e) she did not hold out or represent to people that she was intending to marry the respondent;

(f) she denied ever speaking to the respondent about the two marrying prior to late December 2023; and

---