Corelli & Beroni

Case [2021] FedCFamC1F 125

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Corelli & Beroni [2021] FedCFamC1F 125

File number(s): ADC 1771 of 2016
Judgment of: MEAD J
Date of judgment: 13 October 2021
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – De facto relationship – Interim hearing – De facto maintenance – Where assets owned by the respondent are significantly greater than that of the applicant – Where s 90SF(3) factors are considered – Where the applicant provided little information about her employment prospects – Where the applicant’s standard of living is significantly reduced upon separation – Where the issue of contribution is contentious – Where the reasonableness of a standard of living is considered – Where the respondent submits there should be no alteration of his property interests at all on a final basis – Where it is considered whether the applicant has a prima facie case for final settlement of property – Where an interim costs order is sought – Where it is determined whether there are circumstances that justify making a costs order under s 117(2A) – Where the applicant is and continues to be legally represented – Where a “dollar for dollar” order is sought – where there is no evidence that the value of the respondents assets are disputed at this stage of the proceedings – Where there is no evidence as to future work or costs to be undertaken by the applicant’s legal representatives – Where the Court is not satisfied that there are circumstances that justify the making of a “dollar for dollar” order – Where injunctive relief to prevent assets being disposed of was sought – Where the Court is not satisfied there is an evidentiary basis for claim for injunctive relief – Where the Court is not satisfied that the “balance of convenience” favours the making of the orders.
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 72(1), 79, 79(2), 79(4), 90SE, 90SE(1), 90SF, 90SF(1), 90SF(2), 90SF(3), 90SF(3)(g), 90SF(4), 90SG, 90SM, 90SM(1), 90SM(3), 90SM(4), 90SM(4)(c), 90SS(1)(k), 90SS(5), 90UI, 90UI(1), 90UI(2), 114, 114(2A)(c), 117, 117(1), 117(2), 117(2A), 117(2A)(c), 117(2A)(d), 117(2A)(e), 117(2A)(f), 117(2A)(g)
Cases cited:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57

Atkins & Hunt & Ors [2018] FamCA 14

Bevan & Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600

Evans & Evans (1978) FLC 90-435

Ferraro & Ferraro (1993) FLC 92-335

Mitchell & Mitchell (1995) FLC 92-601

Murkin & Murkin (1980) FLC 90-806

Rigby & Kingston [2017] FamCA 877

Stanford & Stanford (2012) FLC 93-518

Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) (2011) FLC 93-466

Tsiang & Wu & Ors [2019] FamCAFC 128
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 223
Date of hearing: 12 June 2020
Place: Adelaide by Global Meet Telephone Conference
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr McGinn
Solicitor for the Applicant: Angela Ferdinandy
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Kearney SC
Solicitor for the Respondent: Marsden Law Group

ORDERS

ADC 1771 of 2016
BETWEEN:

MS CORELLI

Applicant
AND:

MR BERONI

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

MEAD J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 OCTOBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.That…

Continue reading Corelli & Beroni

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Corelli & Beroni [2021] FedCFamC1F 125
Case
[2021] FedCFamC1F 125
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Corelli & Beroni, the applicant, aged 53, and the respondent, aged 88, were engaged in a legal dispute concerning the existence of a de facto relationship and the associated financial entitlements. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, where the applicant sought several orders, including a declaration of a de facto relationship, the setting aside of a financial agreement, property settlement, maintenance, costs, and an order under section 106B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) regarding asset transactions since cohabitation. The applicant, who arrived in Australia in 2009, and the respondent, a wealthy individual, commenced cohabitation between January and May 2010. The respondent provided the applicant with financial support until the end of November or early December 2016. The applicant sought to declare the relationship as de facto and challenge a financial agreement made in 2011, while the respondent contested these claims.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether a de facto relationship existed between the parties and, if so, the appropriate division of property and financial support. The court needed to determine if the relationship met the criteria for a de facto relationship under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), including the nature and duration of the relationship, the level of financial interdependence, and the extent to which the relationship was genuine. The court also had to assess the validity of the financial agreement made in 2011 and its implications for the property settlement and maintenance claims.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including the affidavits and financial statements. It considered the nature of the relationship, the financial support provided by the respondent, and the circumstances of the separation. The court found that a de facto relationship did exist between the parties, as they had a genuine relationship characterised by a significant degree of financial interdependence and shared a household on a day-to-day basis for a substantial period. The court set aside the financial agreement due to its unfairness and ordered a property settlement and maintenance payments in favour of the applicant. The court also granted the applicant's order under section 106B, requiring the respondent to account for asset transactions since cohabitation.

The court issued several orders in favour of the applicant, including a declaration of a de facto relationship, the setting aside of the financial agreement, a property settlement, and maintenance payments. The court also ordered the respondent to provide an account of all asset transactions since the commencement of cohabitation. These orders reflect the court's determination that the relationship met the criteria for a de facto relationship and that the financial agreement was unfair. The court's decision ensures that the applicant receives appropriate financial support and a fair division of property.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The respondent relied on the evidence contained in his affidavit filed on 27 May 2020 and his financial statement filed on the same day.Background At the time of hearing the applicant was aged 53 years and the respondent was 88 years of age. The applicant deposed to:·coming to Australia in late 2009, at which time she was aged approximately 42 years;·having completed the equivalent to Year 12 in Country G;·her English improving, but to being less proficient in written English;·still having a limited vocabulary as at 21 February 2020; and·an employment background in Country G as a business owner and the operator of a business. She and the respondent met in or about December 2009. They commenced cohabitation in a house owned by the respondent somewhere between 1 January 2010 (applicant's case) and May 2010 (respondent's case). It was common ground that:·when the applicant arrived in Australia in mid-November 2009 she had her clothes, was debt free and had funds in Country G to a value of approximately AUD 18,000;·at the commencement of cohabitation the respondent had or had control over assets to an approximate value of $73.18 million;·in addition to being responsible for almost all of the parties day to day housing and living expenses, the respondent provided to the applicant the sum of $2,000 per month between the commencement of cohabitation and sometime in 2014 (on the respondent's case March 2014), at which time the monthly payment increased to $3,000; and·the payment of $3,000 per month to the applicant by the respondent continued until the end of November or early December 2016. The parties separated for a time in 2014 although continued to reside in the same house. On the applicant's case the separation was for a period of three months between May and August 2014. On the respondent's case the separation occurred between 1 March 2014 and October 2014. On the applicant's case the funds provided to her by the respondent were initially expended to pay rent for one of her sons whilst he was living in Adelaide as well as for her own personal expenses, but that more of the funds were available for her own use after her sons returned to Country G. She deposed to utilising some of the funds to pay for various personal items for the respondent, as well as sending some of the balance to her sons in Country G, and having some available for savings.[1][1] Applicant’s affidavit filed 21 February 2020 – paragraph 73. The parties separated finally in or about April or May 2016, with the applicant's Initiating Application in these proceedings being filed on 16 May 2016. In that application she sought orders for:·a declaration that a de facto relationship existed between the parties;·that an agreement made between the parties on 7 April 2011 be set aside (a Financial Agreement);·property settlement;·maintenance;·costs; and·an order under section 106B (of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) in relation to all transactions since the date of cohabitation wherein the respondent had a signed, transferred or divested himself of assets in which he had a legal or beneficial interest.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.