A judge of the Family Court of Australia has annulled a marriage after accepting that the bride thought she was taking part in an elaborate social media hoax concocted by her husband.
Justice Joshua Wilson found that her participation in the ceremony was not “real consent” as required by the Marriage Act.
Both parties were from another country, which the court has not named, and the groom-to-be was seeking a refugee visa based on his fear of persecution for being bisexual (something he allegedly didn’t disclose to his bride).
The woman claimed not to know of his immigration status but, upon discovering the fact, believed he was looking for an Australian resident or permanent resident who could sponsor him to obtain permanent residency in Australia. As a health professional, she had a fairly straightforward process for applying for permanent residency.
The man, on the other hand, claimed not to know that his wife could be his sponsor.
The bride, 23, and groom, 37, did have some form of relationship beforehand: they met on a dating platform in September 2023, met in person in suburban Victoria the following day, attended church together, and then went to lunch. After that, they remained in communication.
‘White Party’ Turned Out To Be a Wedding
A year later, she travelled to Queensland to attend an event where she and the man had agreed to meet.The court notes that she gave no details of what was discussed at that meeting nor whether “the relationship at that point was platonic or romantic.” They agreed to another trip later that year.
In December, the pair travelled to Sydney to attend what the man described as a “white party”—an event where everyone wears white.
The woman testified that the man had told her to bring a white dress with her to Sydney, but refused to give any other details of the event. She claimed that when she arrived, she was the only person in white and was “furious” when she found out it was to be a marriage ceremony.
She threatened to leave, but when a friend told her on the phone that a notice of intention to marry was required—and based on her view that marriages could only take place in court—she agreed to take part “in the belief that it was just a prank” for the man’s 17,000 Instagram followers.
Inconsistencies In Evidence
The husband’s testimony was very different from that of his former wife.He said within the first week of their meeting in October 2023 she had moved in with him, accepted his proposal and agreed to get married the following day, and sent him a list of items she wanted him to buy for her before marriage.
However, the judge noted that the man gave no evidence on “the contents of any ... conversation about marriage, especially when that conversation allegedly took place, who said what to whom, where, and when the marriage would take place and who would be present to witness it or such like issues.”
The man claimed to have paid $3,000 for the wedding and $6,900 for a wedding ring but did not provide a breakdown of the ceremony costs or produce a receipt for the ring.
For her part, the woman denied ever discussing marriage, though she did admit to wanting to marry the man at some point.
However, in her culture, any marriage needed her parents to be present or to have given their permission. Only a photographer, their assistant, and the celebrant were present at the event in Sydney.
The judge noted that the “notice of intended marriage” filed with the NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages included a signature, purportedly of the woman, which “bears no resemblance to and looks nothing like” her signature on court documents.
So, despite the inconsistencies in both parties’ testimony, the judge said he believed the woman thought the 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” and declared the marriage nullified.
