Egan & Crisanti - [2021] FedCFamC2F 341

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Egan & Crisanti [2021] FedCFamC2F 341

File number(s): MLC 1795 of 2019

Judgment of: DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MERCURI

Date of judgment: 10 November 2021

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – application for a declaration pursuant to section 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – whether the parties were in a de facto relationship – long duration of relationship – where respondent alleges applicant was his nanny and housekeeper - nature and extent of common residence – degree of financial dependence or interdependence – ownership, use and acquisition of the property – degree of mutual commitment to a shared life – care and support of children – reputation and public aspects of relationship – no de facto relationship – section 90RD declaration not made.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AA, 90RD

Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008 (Cth) Schedule 1

Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic)

Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 (Vic)

Cases cited:
Jonah & White [2012] FamCAFC 200

Onslow v Onslow [2016] FamCAFC 7

Number of paragraphs: 207

Date of last submission/s: 19 March 2021

Date of hearing: 2 – 3 December 2019, 20 March 2020 and 11 February 2021

Place: Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Indovino

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Hall
ORDERS

MLC 1795 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS EGAN

Applicant

AND:
MR CRISANTI

Respondent

order made by:

DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MERCURI

DATE OF ORDER:

10 November 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s application pursuant to section 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) be dismissed.
2.All other extant applications be otherwise dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Egan & Crisanti has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MERCURI:
INTRODUCTION

Before the court is an application for a declaration pursuant to section 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’) that the parties were in a de facto relationship.
The applicant submits that the relationship spanned a total of 29 years and came to an end in May 2018. The respondent denies that the parties were ever in a de facto relationship. In the alternative, the respondent…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Egan & Crisanti

Details

AGLC: Egan & Crisanti [2021] FedCFamC2F 341
Case: [2021] FedCFamC2F 341
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Egan & Crisanti involved an application for a declaration that the applicant and the respondent were in a de facto relationship for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established on the balance of probabilities that she and the respondent were in a de facto relationship which had not broken down by 1 March 2009. The applicant argued that the parties had lived together for almost 30 years, shared a bed, and had a sexual relationship. She also argued that they had a mutual commitment to a shared life, and that they were known to others as a couple. The respondent argued that the applicant was his nanny and housekeeper, and that their relationship was one of landlord and tenant. He also argued that the applicant had no financial dependence or interdependence with him, and that they did not share a mutual commitment to a shared life. The court found that the applicant had not established on the balance of probabilities that she and the respondent were in a de facto relationship which had not broken down by 1 March 2009. The court found that the parties had lived together for almost 30 years, but that their relationship had changed over time. Initially, the applicant had come to live with the respondent to care for his children, and they had become engaged. However, due to the applicant's health conditions, their engagement was called off, and they became landlord and tenant. The court found that from 2007 onwards, the respondent had tried to have the applicant leave his home, but she refused. The court also found that the parties did not have a sexual relationship after their engagement was called off, and that they did not have a mutual commitment to a shared life. The court found that the evidence of the parties' shared lives was limited, and that there was no significant evidence by the parties, or anyone else, of their shared lives. The court found that the evidence of the parties' reputation and public aspects of the relationship was also limited, and that the applicant had not called evidence from friends who had known the applicant and respondent as a couple. The court found that the respondent's offer to purchase a property for the applicant to live in was not significant evidence of the nature of their relationship. The court found that the respondent allowed the applicant to remain living in his home well after he would have liked, because he felt sorry for her. However, this did not evidence that he wanted or in fact was in a genuine domestic relationship with her. The court found that the parties' relationship had broken down by 1 March 2009, and that they were living together on a landlord and tenant basis. The court dismissed the applicant's application for a declaration that she and the respondent were in a de facto relationship.

Orders