acting in an event to be filmed and used by the respondent in his social media activities. The respondent contended that the wedding was valid in fact and in law and that there was no sham component to it. He opposed the declaration of nullity sought by the applicant, contending that if the applicant wanted to end her marriage to the respondent, she needed to divorce him and as they had not separated for 12 months, the applicant could not apply for a divorce.
70 The threshold issue in this case was whether the applicant had engaged the provisions of s 23B(1)(d) of the Marriage Act. I take the view she had not only engaged those provisions but that she believed the impugned ceremony was an act, that she was a performer in a video to be used by the respondent in his social media activities and that she did not participate in a valid marriage ceremony.
71 In reaching that conclusion, I prefer the evidence of the applicant on critical issues over the contrary evidence on the same issues as given by the respondent. My reasons for that conclusion now follow.
72 As the trial judge, I enjoyed all the advantages of which Kirby ACJ spoke in Galea v Galea[1] especially the benefit of hearing and observing both witnesses, watching them when giving their evidence including hesitations, aggressive responses or unlikely requests for clarification of the question. In assessing the evidence given by each party I have considered it according to the civil evidentiary standard of the balance of probabilities assessing which version is more probable than the other. I have assessed the internal consistency of the version each gave and whether it made chronological sense. To the extent that documentary evidence purported to support one version or the other, I have had regard to that or those documents. It is utile to address the evidence in which the version of events as given by the applicant was in conflict with the version of the evidence of events as given by the respondent.
73 The applicant and respondent agreed that they met in September 2023, initially online then later face to face.
74 The respondent asserted that several events occurred in the month of October 2023. First, he said the applicant and he commenced to cohabitate at his home in Suburb F. The applicant gave no such evidence. Instead she gave evidence that she met online in September 2023,
- ↑ (1990) 19 NSWLR 263.
