100 Subsection 23B(1)(e) is connected to s 23B(1)(d) by the word "or".
101 The applicant did not rely on fraud in s 23B(1)(d)(i). She cast her case alternatively under s 23B(1)(d)(ii) or s 23B(1)(d)(iii). She asserted that she was mistaken as to the nature of the ceremony performed because the ceremony being performed on 23 December 2023 was a real wedding ceremony (according to the respondent) whereas the applicant believed the ceremony was an act or a hoax depicting actors pretending to marry.
102 This case differed from many of the reported decisions where mental infirmity procured or was causative of the applicant s mistake as to the nature of the ceremony performed for the purposes of s 23B(1)(d)(ii). This case did not involve the applicant not understanding the nature and effect of the marriage ceremony itself. She did. However, she contended that she did not participate in a marriage ceremony because she believed (based on what the respondent told her) that she was being required to act in a video to be used for the respondent's social media purposes. This was not a case where the applicant did not understand the nature and effect of the marriage ceremony nor was it a case where the applicant or the respondent was not of marriageable age.
103 The applicant relied on her mistake as to the nature of the ceremony performed. In essence, while the respondent asserted that the ceremony was a valid wedding ceremony, the applicant contended that she believed that she was acting as a bride in a video to be used for the respondent's social media activities. Counsel for the respondent relied on a collection of authorities where the relevant ceremony was performed in a language not spoken by the applicant.[1] The facts of this case bear no relation to those authorities. He also cited cases said to involve betrothal ceremonies. Those authorities included Kelly v Kelly,[2] Valier v Valier[3] and Rabab & Rashad.[4] Counsel for the respondent endeavoured to distinguish those cases mainly on the basis that the applicant's command of the English language is very good.
104 In final addresses Mr Goddard of Counsel submitted as follows –
"Well, yes, your Honour. It's not a real consent because – it was either because we say it was obtained by fraud – we don't rely on duress – or that my client was mistaken as to the nature of the ceremony performed, or that she did not understand the nature and effect of the marriage ceremony. So it's really reliant on all three of
