they met in person the following day in Suburb B, the next day they attended a church and had lunch thereafter after which they went to their respective homes and thereafter the applicant and the respondent commence to regularly communicate.
75 The respondent said nothing in his evidence about a meeting with the applicant in Suburb B in September 2023, or about attending a church the following day or about having lunch thereafter with the applicant. Instead he deposed in paragraph 5 of his 23 September 2024 affidavit that the two met on a dating online platform and that "during our initial meetings" the applicant disclosed her eagerness to settle down. He did not say how many "initial meetings" they had nor did he say during which of those initial meetings did the applicant disclose her eagerness to settle down. For that matter, having stated that he and the applicant met online, nowhere in his evidence did he reveal when the two actually interacted face to face. He said nothing about the church meeting or the lunch. In view of the detail of the sequence of events as given by the applicant, there being no comparable detail given by the respondent I find on the balance of probabilities that the version of events as given by the applicant in respect of the interaction between the two in the month of September 2023 is to be preferred over the version of events during the month of September 2023 as given by the respondent. Accordingly, I find as proven facts in this case as follows –
- (a) the applicant met the respondent on an online dating platform in September 2023;
- (a) the two met in person the following day;
- (b) the next day the respondent and the applicant attended a church service in Melbourne;
- (c) after the church service the two took lunch together after which the two went to their separate places of residence; and
- (d) after this the applicant and respondent commenced regular communication.
76 The respondent asserted that the applicant "gradually moved into (his) residence within the first week of meeting". He deposed to his commencing to cohabitate with the applicant during October 2023. I reject the respondent's evidence on point. I say that for several reasons, namely –
- (a) the first week of their meeting, on the respondent's version of events, was early September yet on his own evidence he stated that the applicant moved into his residence during October 2023, rendering his own evidence of the alleged cohabitation erroneous;
