A woman in Australia has annulled her marriage after realising that a fake wedding ceremony she took part in for a social media stunt was in fact real.

What an absolutely wild story this was. Disappointed in the BBC's reporting though. No mention of the groom's side of this. Not what he said to the court (or mention that he did not speak in court), nor anything he might have posted on social media later (surely the drama of all this would have been worth it for more clicks?), nor any mention of an attempt to reach out to him to comment on the story itself.

Not that I think it would exonerate him even slightly, but I just want to see how he could possibly try to defend this. It would have added to the amusement, as well as just being basic good journalistic practices.

[–] Echinoderm@aussie.zone 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Here's the link to the case should you be interested: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC1F/2024/674.html

To be fair to the BBC, most of the questions you raise don't have good answers. There doesn't seem to be a lot of the other side of the story to report. The judge mentions at several points that the purported groom gave only vague and incomplete evidence, and that he failed to provide details about key issues.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 7 hours ago

most of the questions you raise don’t have good answers

I mean, that's fine. But it's a standard inclusion in an article, even if all you have to say is "the groom did not respond to our request for comment." It makes it clear that you tried and he was not interested in explaining himself. As it's written, it looks like they just couldn't be bothered doing journalism.

Anyway, thanks for sharing that. It's a wild read.

Minor side note:

When giving their evidence either viva voce or by affidavit, the applicant and the respondent were duty bound to comply with the stipulations in Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd[6] where the High Court held that a witness must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

How is it that the citation for "a witness must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" only 13 years old‽

It must not be overlooked that I am not required to accept evidence, even uncontroverted evidence, if that evidence is contrary to the way events are likely to have occurred

Tell that to the High Court in Pell...

[–] ladicius@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

If that influencer idiot had forged her signature halfway convincingly the trial probably would have gone the other way.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 13 hours ago

Maybe. I can see why you'd say that, since the judge did mention it. But I think not. There seems to have been enough other evidence (not the least of which is her own testimony and the specific timing of this filing) that it probably could never have gone any other way.

[–] Orbituary@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

Maeby?