65 The applicant gave evidence that she had not seen the notice of intended marriage before, let alone had she signed it.
66 The respondent was cross-examined by Mr Goddard. The more important matters that arose from the evidence he gave in answer to questions put to him by Mr Goddard were as follows –
- (a) the respondent denied being a social media influencer;[1]
- (b) he is Christian by religion;
- (c) he knew the applicant is a religious woman;
- (d) he asserted that he and the applicant lived together from a week after she met the applicant; and
- (e) he admitted that his relationship with the applicant ended in February 2024.
67 He was asked about the notice of intended marriage dated 20 November 2023. He said he commenced making plans for the marriage in November 2023. That answer seemed peculiar because he had not even proposed to the applicant by November 2023 (that happened in late December 2023) and his evidence that he lived with the applicant from October 2023 was disputed by the applicant. He said he had communicated with the applicant's mother.[2] The respondent said he did not sign the notice of intended marriage witnessed by Mr C in the presence of Mr C because Mr C was in Sydney and the respondent was in Melbourne. He admitted that the applicant was not present at the time, 20 November 2023. The respondent said the applicant's part of the document was signed on the day of the ceremony. He agreed that only the photographer and a friend of the photographer attended the wedding. He agreed that there were no gifts at the alleged wedding ceremony. He said that they drove from Melbourne in a hired car to reach Sydney and "rented a hotel" (his words). He agreed no representative from the bride's family attended the ceremony.
68 He admitted he had more than 17,000 Instagram followers.
CREDIT ISSUES
69 In this case the applicant asserted that the purported wedding ceremony in which she allegedly participated in late December 2023 was a sham in that she believed that she was
