79 The applicant's statement that she and the respondent started spending time together after the Queensland trip told little to nothing about the frequency of the time they spent together, that is to say, how often, where, whether face-to-face or otherwise and in whose company. Yet that evidence was to be contrasted with the respondent's evidence that the applicant moved in with him in October 2023. On his version of the evidence, nowhere did he descend to the detail about their daily lives subsequent to cohabitation, including –
- (a) what activities he performed on a day-today basis as a service industry worker;
- (b) who his employer was;
- (c) how he got to his place of employment each day;
- (d) with which friends the applicant and the respondent interacted between October 2023 and late December 2023;
- (e) how often the applicant worked on a day-to-day basis;
- (f) how she got to her place of employment each day;
- (g) who her employer was; and
- (h) in what activities he engaged on a daily or regular basis as an influencer or in the pursuit of his work promoting his social media activities.
80 As is disclosed above, I reject the respondent's evidence that the respondent and applicant moved in together in October 2023. I find that each maintained separate residences from early September 2023 until late December 2023 and beyond.
81 Chronologically, the next date of significance was 20 November 2023 being the date of the notice of intended marriage. The applicant gave evidence that she had no involvement in the creation or execution of that document. She deposed to meeting Mr C once, at the alleged ceremony. She said she did not attend Sydney in November 2023. In his affidavit made 23 September 2024 the respondent said nothing about the document dated 20 November 2023. He was cross-examined[1] about the 20 November 2023 notice of intended marriage. He admitted to proposing marriage to the applicant a couple of days before the ceremony yet he was asked in what circumstances, in November 2023, he signed a notice of intended marriage. He gave a non-responsive answer introducing apparently irrelevant information about a list of items. The respondent gave evidence in answer to questions put to him in cross-examination that the celebrant, Mr C, was not physically present when signing the
- ↑ T 78.
