couple. She said they did not. He said they did. The respondent said he is bisexual. The applicant gave evidence she did not know of that prior to the convening of the impugned wedding ceremony.
9 For the reasons that follow, in my judgment the applicant made out the elements of s 23B(1)(d) of the Marriage Act and is therefore entitled to the order she seeks declaring her marriage to the respondent a nullity.
SOME BACKGROUND ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT
10 At the date of the trial of this proceeding, the applicant was 24 years of age. She made two affidavits in support of her application for a declaration of nullity in this proceeding, namely, her affidavit made 12 September 2024 and her affidavit made 26 September 2024.
11 According to the information in her affidavit made 12 September 2024, she first communicated with the respondent (it seems electronically – not face-to-face) on a dating platform in September 2023. They met in person at an address in Suburb B, Victoria the next day. The applicant and respondent attended a church in Melbourne in September 2023 after which they dined together at lunch (although she did not say whether alone or in company) thereafter departing for their respective homes. She deposed to regularly communicating with the respondent thereafter.
12 The few events just described did not incorporate any discussion of marriage. For that matter, the few events just described revealed the briefest of exchanges between a man and a woman with very little beyond their Country D heritage in common.
13 She did not depose to her citizenship – whether Country D, Australian or dually Country D and Australian. However she did depose to not knowing by September 2023 that the respondent had applied for a refugee visa and that, so she asserted, the respondent was looking for an Australian resident or permanent resident who could sponsor him to obtain permanent residency in Australia.
14 The applicant deposed to travelling to Queensland in September 2024 to attend an event where she said she and the respondent had agreed to meet. She deposed to meeting the respondent in Queensland, although she gave no other details beyond the respondent accompanying her, the duration of that meeting and in particular, the context of their discussions. She did not depose to whether the relationship at that point was platonic or romantic.
