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 says that any relationship which did exist between the parties had broken down by 1 March 2009.
BACKGROUND
By way of procedural background, the proceedings initially commenced before her Honour Judge Bender on 2 December 2019 and continued on 3 December 2019 and were adjourned part heard to 20 March 2020. They were then listed before me due to Judge Bender’s unavailability and the parties elected to continue the hearing relying on the transcript of the proceedings before Judge Bender.
The continuation of the proceedings were then heard by me on 20 March 2020 and concluded on 11 February 2021, interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Consent orders were made for the parties to file and serve closing submissions by 5 March 2021 and any submissions in reply by 19 March 2021.
The applicant is now 54 years of age and the respondent is 73 years of age.
SUMMARY
Both parties have filed affidavit material and rely upon various affidavits filed by others detailed further below.
For the reasons which follow, having regard to the totality of the evidence, I find that the applicant has not established on the balance of probabilities that she and the respondent were in a de facto relationship which subsisted after 1 March 2009.
It is common ground that the parties lived in the same premises from the late 1980s or early 1990s until May 2018; that they moved on at least 3 occasions, including obtaining rental accommodation on at least one occasion. It is also not in dispute that the parties shared a bed at times during this period. It is also common ground that in 1993, the parties were engaged but ultimately did not marry.
It is also common ground that the applicant attended the respondent’s mother’s funeral in 2004; was included in the funeral pamphlet and gave a eulogy. Moreover, on at least two occasions, the parties went on holidays together, including a cruise with the respondent’s children and a trip to Adelaide. The applicant says that this was in the context of the parties being in a de facto relationship. The respondent says that the applicant was there in her capacity as the nanny to assist with the care of his children.
It is agreed that the parties have at no time shared finances or had joint bank accounts. Moreover, it is agreed that the applicant has at all times been in receipt of welfare payments although she says that this was only done under duress from the respondent.
The applicant also concedes that she was aware that the respondent has had at least two relationships over the past 10 years although she says that the respondent was simply being unfaithful to her.
As to credit of the parties, as is evident from the background set out earlier, this trial, was not conducted in its entirety before me. I have read the transcript in its entirety. I saw some, but not all of the evidence given by the respondent. In those circumstances, it is difficult to make findings of credit based on the presentation of the witness. Clearly in coming to a conclusion on the principal issue in this case, namely the nature of the relationship between the parties, the court must accept the characterisation contended for by one party and reject that contended for by the other. However, it is not necessary for me to make adverse credibility findings to come to that conclusion. In making the conclusions I have reached in this matter, I have had regard to the totality of the evidence presented by the parties.
Applicant’s case
The applicant relies upon the following documents:
·Further amended initiating application filed 13 May 2019;
·Applicant’s financial statement filed 21 February 2019; and
·Applicant’s affidavits filed 21 February 2019, 22 July 2019 & 29 October 2019.
In addition, the applicant also relies upon the following affidavits:
·Mr B filed 28 October 2019;
·Mr C sworn 18 July 2019;
·Mr D filed 29 October 2019;
·Ms E filed 29 October 2019; and
·Mr F filed 28 October 2019.
The applicant’s evidence is that she commenced living with the respondent in 1989 and that they separated on 3 May 2018.[1] The applicant states that during the relationship, she worked in the respondent’s business as well as undertaking household duties and caring for the respondent’s children while they lived with the couple. The applicant claims that the respondent was violent towards her during the relationship, with that violence worsening after 2009. The applicant further stated that she has health issues which mean she cannot be gainfully employed and that her health conditions have been exacerbated by the respondent’s conduct towards her.
[1] Applicant’s affidavit sworn 19 July 2019 and filed 22 July 2019 at paragraph 19.
The applicant says that she suffers from numerous medical conditions. The applicant also says that the respondent was physically violent towards her in April 2017, which has left her with an injury to her shoulder.
The applicant also makes very serious allegations of physical and sexual assault against the respondent over the course of their relationship.
In her affidavit filed 21 February 2019, the applicant says:
At the commencement of our relationship [Mr Crisanti] made me sign a document identifying him as my landlord. I felt powerless to refuse his demands and so I signed that document. … [Mr Crisanti] demanded I continued to receive Centrelink payments throughout our relationship.[2]
[2] Applicant’s affidavit sworn 20 February 2019 and filed 21 February 2019 at paragraph 17.
As to the circumstances of final separation, the applicant stated in her affidavit filed 21 February 2019:
I only left the family home with the intention of permanently separating from [Mr Crisanti] on 3 may 2018. That was when I finally summoned sufficient courage to permanently leave [Mr Crisanti].[3]
[3] Applicant’s affidavit sworn 20 February 2019 and filed 21 February 2019 at paragraph 19.
The applicant stated in her affidavit filed 21 February 2019 that:
My financial circumstances are extremely dire and I am struggling to get by from week to week. The financial statement sworn by me and filed contemporaneously herewith is true and correct.[4]
[4] Applicant’s affidavit sworn 20 February 2019 and filed 21 February 2019 at paragraph 30.
The applicant says that her ‘friends and family were all aware as to the nature of my relationship with Mr Crisanti’.[5] Importantly, I note that although the applicant indicated that she had three of her siblings supporting her in court, the applicant does not rely on any evidence from members of her family to support this assertion. The absence of evidence from any member of her family about a relationship which the applicant says spanned almost 30 years, whilst not determinative, is not insignificant.
[5] Applicant’s affidavit sworn 19 July 2019 and filed 22 July 2019 at paragraph 20.
The applicant also gave evidence that after moving out of the Town G property, she commenced a relationship with Mr H in 2018. Mr H was diagnosed with cancer in 2018. The applicant and Mr H married in 2019 and Mr H passed away from his illness in 2019.
Relevantly, in her affidavit filed 22 July 2019, the applicant deposes to the fact that Mr H had very little in the way of property and went on to say that she ‘barely get(s) by from week to week and I do not anticipate this will change until the matter of property settlement with Mr Crisanti is finalised.’ [6] In her further affidavit filed 29 October 2019, however the applicant deposed to being the beneficiary of Mr H’s superannuation entitlement in the sum of $36,075.92 and under his death cover policy in the sum of $625,985.
[6] Applicant’s affidavit sworn 19 July 2019 and filed 22 July 2019 at paragraph 26.
In addition, the applicant further stated at paragraph 5 of her 29 October 2019 affidavit that:
·in 1993, the parties were engaged and the respondent gave her an engagement ring;
·in 1994, the respondent purchased a time-share called J in her name for $9,000 which was ultimately forfeited as the respondent ceased paying the instalments;
·in about 1996, the respondent purchased a vehicle for her registered in her name;
·the respondent was controlling of her and demanded that she continue receiving Social Security benefits;
·she gave a eulogy at the respondent mother’s funeral in 2004 and funeral documents refer to her and the respondent as a couple.[7]
[7] Applicant’s affidavit sworn and filed 29 October 2019 at paragraph 5.
I note that the applicant gives no evidence about the circumstances in which she met the respondent. In her affidavit filed 21 February 2019, she simply said that she and the respondent commenced cohabitation in 1989. As stated, she says that the respondent required her to sign a document indicating that she was a tenant and he was a landlord. She says that she had no option but to sign this document although she gives no context as to why she felt compelled to do so.
Mr C
Mr C swore an affidavit in which he attests to the following:
(a)he is a painter and in or about 2005, he was engaged by the applicant and the respondent to paint a property where they lived in Town K;[8]
(b)subsequently, in about 2006, he was again engaged to paint a new home they were having built in Town G;[9]
(c)the Town G job took about eight weeks;[10]
(d)during that project both the applicant and the respondent were involved in choosing colours and finishes and gave directions as to the work to be carried out.[11]
[8] Affidavit of Mr C sworn 18 July 2019 and filed 22 July 2019 at paragraph 2.
[9] Affidavit of Mr C sworn 18 July 2019 and filed 22 July 2019 at paragraph 3.
[10] Affidavit of Mr C sworn 18 July 2019 and filed 22 July 2019 at paragraph 4.
[11] Affidavit of Mr C sworn 18 July 2019 and filed 22 July 2019 at paragraph 4.
Mr C further stated:
It was clear to me that [Ms Egan] and [Mr Crisanti] were in a domestic relationship given the way in which they both went about planning and building the Town G property and instructing me of their requirements.[12]
[12] Affidavit of Mr C sworn 18 July 2019 and filed 22 July 2019 at paragraph 5.
Moreover, Mr C said that about a year later he was called back to do some further work and that in undertaking work in the ensuite to the master bedroom, he:
…observed both female and male clothing being stored in the walk-in robe. The ensuite was also a shared area and it was clear and obvious to me that [Ms Egan] and [Mr Crisanti] were a couple and that they were cohabitating in that property together and sharing the master bedroom.[13]
[13] Affidavit of Mr C sworn 18 July 2019 and filed 22 July 2019 at paragraph 7.
In the course of cross examination, Mr C conceded that it was the respondent who paid the bills and who dealt with Mr C in relation to the work to be performed although the applicant was generally also at the house.
Mr C maintained in cross examination that there were men’s clothes in the walk in wardrobe. He also maintained that from what he saw in the ensuite it appeared that two people were using that ensuite. He further said he saw:
… razorblades … toothpaste, different toothbrushes, ladies makeup, men’s shaving gear…. It looked like there was a man and a woman sharing a bathroom. … so there was all that stuff I had to move in order to pain this ceiling …[14]
[14] Court transcript dated 2 December 2019 page 88.
Mr F
Mr F gave evidence that he first met the applicant and the respondent in about early 2008 and that he attended their home, although he does not specifically say when that occurred.[15] Moreover, he also says that both the applicant and the respondent said in the presence of the other that ‘they had been together for many years and that they shared the property together.’[16] Mr F further says that he also attended the applicant and respondent’s home on occasion to do some gardening, again he makes no specific reference to exactly when this was.
[15] Affidavit of Mr F sworn 25 October 2019 and filed 28 October 2019 at paragraph 1.
[16] Affidavit of Mr F sworn 25 October 2019 and filed 28 October 2019 at paragraph 2.
Importantly, Mr F says that he has not seen either the applicant or the respondent since his own relationship with Ms L came to an end in 2013.[17] He concludes at paragraph 6 of his affidavit ‘In my opinion, I had no doubt in my mind that Ms Egan and Mr Crisanti were a couple.’[18]
[17] Affidavit of Mr F sworn 25 October 219 and filed 28 October 2019 at paragraph 5.
[18] Affidavit of Mr F sworn 25 October 2019 and filed 28 October 2019 at paragraph 6.
Mr F was cross examined by telephone as he had been hospitalised the day before the trial. In the course of cross examination, he said :
… I was lead to believe that they were (in a de facto relationship). … I met [Mr Crisanti] back in 2008 or ’09 around the bushfire time, and they were, - I went to [Ms Egan]’s house with [Ms L] because … [Ms Egan] and [Ms L] were friends, and because I was [Ms L]’s partner we went up there … and it appeared to me that they were … living together.[19]
[19] Court transcript 3 December 2019 page 105.
The following exchange then occurred:
Respondent’s counsel: But the idea that they were in a de facto relationship rather than simply living together is just something that you’re assuming, isn’t it?
[Mr F]:Well, it just seemed to me … [Ms Egan] cooked … his dinner and … they had conversations about going away together. They had a timeshare and they went on holidays together. I mean, that seems a bit more than just – do you know what I mean. … and [Ms Egan] said that she was with [Mr Crisanti] when she was only 21 or something …[20]
[20] Court transcript 3 December 2019 page 106.
Mr F confirmed however, that he never discussed the applicant’s relationship with the respondent directly. He also confirmed that he went to the applicant’s home about twice in 2008 or thereabouts and that he went with his then partner Ms L.
The respondent takes issue with much of the content of Mr F’s affidavit. In particular, he takes issue with Mr F’s statement that both the applicant and respondent referred to each other as having been together for many years. The respondent also states that he only met Mr F on one occasion, namely when he came home to find Mr F working in his garden. Mr F said that the applicant had asked him to do some weeding and that the respondent would pay him. The respondent asked Mr F to leave which he did.
Mr D
Mr D states in his affidavit affirmed 28 October 2019 that he first met the applicant and the respondent in about 2013 when he looked at renting premises from them.[21] He says that the applicant introduced the respondent saying ‘this is my husband’. [22] Mr D says that they then agreed that he would rent premises from the applicant and respondent which was about 50 meters from where the parties lived. He continued to rent these premises for some four years.[23]
[21] Affidavit of Mr D affirmed 28 October 2019 and filed 29 October 2019 at paragraph 1.
[22] Affidavit of Mr D affirmed 28 October 2019 and filed 29 October 2019 at paragraph 1.
[23] Affidavit of Mr D affirmed 28 October 2019 and filed 29 October 2019 at paragraph 2.
Mr D said that he observed the parties to represent as a ‘couple’.[24] The parties operated a business known as Company M. Mr D says:
Throughout the years I saw both of the parties on numerous occasions working on the farm. They attended [work] meetings together. They went on a bus holiday to Adelaide. I paid rental when it was due to either [Ms Egan] or [Mr Crisanti].[25]
[24] Affidavit of Mr D affirmed 28 October 2019 and filed 29 October 2019 at paragraph 3.
[25] Affidavit of Mr D affirmed 28 October 2019 and filed 29 October 2019 at paragraph 5.
Relevantly, Mr D also said that while he was living there, he never saw any other woman with the respondent other than the applicant.
The respondent concedes that Mr D was a tenant at the Town G property for about four years, however he says that Mr D was often late with the rent and ultimately was evicted. He says that when an eviction notice was served on Mr D, he became threatening and violent and the police were called.
Moreover, the respondent says that Mr D was not privy to the comings and goings from the property as there were two driveways and that Mr D’s views of the nature of the parties’ relationship is simply based on assumptions.
Ms E
Ms E also gave evidence in support of the applicant in which she states that she first met the applicant at the school that her children attended.[26] Ms E stated that she initially thought that the applicant was the mother of the respondent’s children although she ultimately came to understand that the children were the respondent’s children not the applicant’s children.
[26] Affidavit of Ms E sworn 27 October 2019 and filed 29 October 2019 at paragraph 1.
Ms E also gives evidence that she became aware of the engagement between the applicant and the respondent. Ms E further states that she attended the property where the applicant and the respondent lived, that she attended a dinner at the applicant’s home and that the respondent was also present. She asserts that they were a couple and that she has observed the applicant to work on the farm where they lived. She concludes by saying:
I have no doubt in my mind that they were a genuine couple and presented to our community that they were a couple. The assertion made by [Mr Crisanti] that [Ms Egan] was a nanny is ridiculous.[27]
[27] Affidavit of Ms E sworn 27 October 2019 and filed 29 October 2019 at paragraph 6.
In cross examination, it was put to Ms E that the applicant had been engaged as a nanny when she first moved into the respondent’s home. Ms E said that that was not true and further said:
they were in a relationship from the time I saw [Ms Egan] and started to speak with her at the school where my daughter went and [Mr Crisanti]’s son and daughter went and I even thought they were her children at the time. … and from that time on she was very proud to say that she was his fiancé.[28]
[28] Court transcript 3 December 2019 page 100.
Mr B
The applicant relies upon an affidavit from Mr B who states:
·the applicant was his patient between 2007 and 2008;[29]
·he saw the applicant in his professional rooms and also at her various residences with the respondent;[30]
·the applicant came to see him about difficulties in her relationship with the respondent;
·in about 2008, the respondent contacted Mr B ‘seeking assistance following a melt down the Applicant was experiencing’;[31]and
·when the parties were living in N Street, he attended their home, the respondent spoke glowingly about the applicant and how hard she works on the property.[32]
[29] Affidavit of Mr B sworn 24 October 2019 and filed 28 October 2019 at paragraph 2.
[30] Affidavit of Mr B sworn 24 October 2019 and filed 28 October 2019 at paragraph 2.
[31] Affidavit of Mr B sworn 24 October 2019 and filed 28 October 2019 at paragraph 3.
[32] Affidavit of Mr B sworn 24 October 2019 and filed 28 October 2019 at paragraph 4.
Mr B concludes by saying that there was nothing that he heard or saw to suggest the applicant and the respondent ‘were anything but a couple. It came as a total shock and surprise when Ms Egan told me that the Respondent was asserting that she was simply a nanny and not in a domestic relationship.’[33]
[33] Affidavit of Mr B sworn 24 October 2019 and filed 28 October 2019 at paragraph 5.
In response the respondent concedes that he did call Mr B because the applicant was having a severe mental health episode at the time and Mr B was her treating practitioner. He says that he called Mr B ‘to attend to Ms Egan because I did not know what to do.’[34]
[34] Respondent’s affidavit sworn 19 November 2019 and filed 20 November 2019 at paragraph 8.
The respondent also concedes that he may have praised the applicant’s work in the early years when she was performing services as a nanny for his children. However, the respondent denies ever saying anything about the applicant performing work on his property as that was not required, nor was she able to contribute in that way given her various health conditions.[35]
[35] Affidavit of Mr B sworn 24 October 2019 and filed 28 October 2019 at paragraph 9.
In the course of cross examination, Mr B clarified that he in fact saw the applicant between July 2005 and August 2007.[36] Mr B also confirmed in the course of cross examination that the respondent had contacted him regarding the applicant’s ‘melt down’ during the time that she was his patient, i.e. before 2007.[37]
[36] Court transcript 2 December 2019 at page 78.
[37] Court transcript 2 December 2019 at page 79.
Mr B also confirmed that he did not speak to the respondent about the nature of the living arrangement between the applicant and the respondent.
To the extent that Mr B expressed a view as to his understanding of the nature of the parties’ relationship, the respondent says that this is no more than an assumption made by Mr B. Importantly, the respondent says at para 10 of his affidavit filed 20 Nov 2019:
I did show concern for [Ms Egan] given her extremely poor health including mental health, even taking her to medical appointments at times when she was too unwell to drive. [Mr B] has misconstrued the situation while [Ms Egan] is seeking to take advantage of that kindness.[38]
[38] Respondent’s affidavit sworn 19 November 2019 and filed 20 November 2019 at paragraph 10.
In the course of cross examination on this point, the following exchange occurred:
Respondent’s counsel: Isn’t it fair to say that the basis of your belief about the nature of the relationship between [Mr Crisanti] and [Ms Egan] is derived, most of all, from your one-on-one counselling sessions with [Ms Egan]?
[Mr B]:Yes. Because it’s certainly based on my experience and also based on the … 30-odd sessions … that I had with her over that period of time. I would say that she certainly believed, without question, that they were in a de facto relationship.[39]
[39] Court transcript 2 December 2019 at page 80.
Mr B also stated that when the respondent spoke glowingly of the applicant it was in reference to her ‘work ethic’. In this context, the following exchange occurred with Judge Bender:
Judge Bender: but the discussion you had with … [Mr Crisanti]… and he was speaking glowingly … what was the context of that discussion? Where were you? How did it come up?
[Mr B]:Well, it was with my wife and I. We were having, I think afternoon tea. Might have been even around at their house. And just visiting socially. And [Mr Crisanti] was quite, as I say, glowing in his praise of [Ms Egan]’s work ethic, even to the point of helping him on the job as an [tradesman]. Running cables through cramped spaces in rooves and that sort of thing. I can’t recall him ever mentioning her role as a nanny.
Judge Bender: How many discussions would you have had with [Mr Crisanti], either with [Ms O] or just [Mr Crisanti]?
[Mr B]: …it’s hard to put a quantity on, but five to ten possibly.[40]
[40] Court transcript 2 December 2019 at page 82.
Respondent’s case
The respondent relies upon his affidavit, together with affidavits from his son, Mr P, Ms Q, Ms R and Mr S.
In his affidavit filed 7 August 2019, the respondent states that after he separated from his wife, his three children lived with him on a full time basis. He said that for the first two years after separation, his parents moved in to help him care for his children given that he was working on a full time basis. That was not sustainable, however, given his parents’ advancing years and so in 1991, he advertised for a full time live in nanny. He says that the applicant was recommended to him by his book keeper at the time.[41]
[41] Respondent’s affidavit sworn and filed 7 August 2019 at paragraph 5.
He says that he offered the applicant free board in return for her caring for the children before and after school until he returned home from work. He says that he paid for groceries which the applicant would purchase from an agreed list. The respondent says that the applicant also had access to a vehicle he supplied and he met the costs of fuel. The respondent says that this was to allow the applicant to transport the children to and from school and other activities as required.
The respondent agrees that he required the applicant to sign a document in which she acknowledged that theirs was a landlord/tenant relationship.[42] The respondent states that the parties at no stage had joint bank accounts, not purchased any property together.[43]
[42] Respondent’s affidavit sworn and filed 7 August 2019 at paragraph 7.
[43] Respondent’s affidavit sworn and filed 7 August 2019 at paragraph 7.
The respondent says that his children each had difficulties with the applicant and progressively moved out of home. By 1996, the youngest of his children had left home and he no longer had a need for the applicant’s services and he therefore asked her to leave. He further says that at that time the applicant’s health issues flared up and he tried to help her get appropriate care, including by taking her to various medical appointments. He says that once her health improved, he again asked her to leave.
The respondent says that the applicant ultimately told him that she had nowhere to go. The respondent says that he felt sorry for her and in those circumstances, he said he agreed that she could stay on the basis that she did the housework in lieu of board.[44]
[44] Respondent’s affidavit sworn and filed 7 August 2019 at paragraph 22.
The respondent says that in 2000, he purchased the property at T Street, Town G (‘the Town G property’) and progressively built a home there. Initially, there was only one bedroom, a bathroom, kitchen and living room. Ultimately, he built additional bedrooms and completed the construction of the house.[45]
[45] Respondent’s affidavit sworn and filed 7 August 2019 at paragraph 23.
The respondent concedes that the parties did have a sexual relationship for a very brief period in 1993 for about one month.[46] He says that after this aspect of their relationship came to an end, the applicant continued to live her own life, although she remained living in his home and he had relationships with other women. He deposes to having three long relationships of more than 3 years each between 2002 and the date of swearing his affidavit.[47]
[46] Respondent’s affidavit sworn and filed 7 August 2019 at paragraph 24.
[47] Respondent’s affidavit sworn and filed 7 August 2019 at paragraph 26.
The respondent gave the following evidence about the parties’ sleeping arrangements:
Initially … the applicant used the study as a bedroom. After approximately two years, the Applicant began to sleep in the same bedroom as me. I then used the study for work. … the physical aspect of the relationship was short-lived. Thereafter the applicant continued to sleep in the same bed as me. We just slept beside one another with our backs turned. It did not worry me that the Applicant was sleeping with me. We just didn’t touch each other.[48]
At the [U Street] property, the Applicant again slept in the same bed as me. There were not sufficient bedrooms for the Applicant to have her own room. There were no sexual relations between us.[49]
At the [Town V] property, we slept in the same bedroom but once again, there were no sexual relations between us. The Applicant and I had a lot of altercations at the [Town V] property.[50]
Whereas the ([Town G]) property initially comprised one bedroom, I then built extensions there, so that the property comprises three bedrooms plus a study. Initially the Applicant and I slept in the same bedroom at the (([Town G]) property. This was due to the property only comprising one bedroom and bathroom. When the rest of the house was built, I then moved into one of the other bedrooms and slept separate from the applicant.[51]
[48] Respondent’s affidavit sworn and filed 7 August 2019 at paragraph 27.
[49] Respondent’s affidavit sworn and filed 7 August 2019 at paragraph 28.
[50] Respondent’s affidavit sworn and filed 7 August 2019 at paragraph 29.
[51] Respondent’s affidavit sworn and filed 7 August 2019 at paragraph 30.
The respondent further stated that after he moved into another bedroom at Town G in about 2008,[52] some of his clothes remained in the master wardrobe, particularly suits and clothes that he did not wear regularly.
[52] Court transcript 3 December 2019 at page 107.
The respondent concedes that he and the applicant continued sleeping in the same bed for some years after 1993 when he says their personal relationship came to an end, although they stopped sleeping in the same bed in about 2008 when the Town G house was completed.
The respondent also conceded that the applicant was sleeping in the master bedroom in the Town G property prior to her leaving in 2018. When asked why this was the case when the applicant was just a nanny/housekeeper/boarder; the respondent said:
Because she had an ensuite there and she had a wardrobe and she was comfortable. … That’s why. I respected her. … and she slept there with her dog too in the bed.[53]
[53] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 218.
It was further put to the respondent that they could have swapped rooms, to which he replied:
No. I preferred to go down to that room. It’s closer to my office and away from her.[54]
[54] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 218.
As to the sleeping arrangements in the Town G property, Ms R stated that she visited that property about eight or nine years ago when she had friends visiting from overseas. In response to a question as to whether she was surprised to still see Ms Egan living in the house when the children were clearly not there anymore and there was no need for her to be a nanny. In response, Ms R said ‘… she had her bedroom… she showed us through the house. “This is my bedroom. This is Mr Crisanti’s bedroom”.’[55]
[55] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 230.
The respondent further says that the parties did not go out as a couple or present to the world as a couple. He gave evidence that the parties did not celebrate significant events together, including Christmas and New Year. The respondent did concede that he and the applicant attended the applicant’s brother’s wedding although he could not recall the date of the wedding and denied that they went as a couple.[56] It was put to him that this was in 2005.
[56] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 216 to 217.
According to the respondent, on New Year’s Eve in 2006, the applicant became angry with him as she wanted to go out and celebrate. He says that the situation between them deteriorated significantly from this time and he became fearful for his safety. At paragraph 37 of his affidavit of 7 August 2019, the respondent said:
From 1 January 2007, I regarded myself as living in a property with an enemy, and I was periodically very frightened for my safety. None of the former aspects of shared living remained, either in terms of sharing a bed, shopping, cooking or cleaning.
The respondent says that following a couple of incidents where he felt threatened by the applicant, he put a deadlock on his bedroom door and shortly thereafter, he asked the applicant to leave the house but she continued to refuse to leave.
The respondent also says that from 2007 onwards, the applicant no longer cooked or cleaned. She simply remained living in his home notwithstanding his requests for her to vacate the premises.
The respondent gave evidence about a further incident in 2016 where the applicant’s sister came to visit the applicant at the Town G property. The respondent said that the applicant’s sister wanted to move into the property, but he refused. An altercation ensued and the police were called and ultimately asked the applicant’s sister to leave the premises.
The respondent said that the situation between the parties came to a head in May 2018 when he said the applicant hit him in the eye. He said that with the assistance of police, he obtained an intervention order and the applicant was removed from the Town G property.
Mr P
The respondent’s son, Mr P filed an affidavit in these proceedings sworn on 6 August 2019. In that affidavit he states that the applicant commenced living in the family home to assist with the care of him and his siblings while the respondent was working.
Mr P’s evidence is that he did not see the applicant as the respondent’s girlfriend. He further stated that he understood that the applicant continued to live at the respondent’s property as she had nowhere else to go.
Moreover, his evidence is that the parties have been sleeping in separate rooms for the past 16 years and that the respondent had a secure lock on his door as he feared the applicant’s threats of harm. Moreover, Mr P’s evidence is that the applicant did not attend family functions with his father, including Christmas functions.
Ms Q
Ms Q filed an affidavit in these proceedings in which she states that she has known the respondent for 13 years and has been in a relationship with him for 5 years. She further states that she knows that the applicant and the respondent had not been in a relationship for a number of years and had separate bedrooms in the Town G home. She further states that she was aware that the applicant and respondent had been in a de facto relationship but that this had failed.
Ms Q also stated that she and the respondent had attended numerous family functions with her as a couple.
Mr S
Mr S has filed an affidavit in these proceedings in which he attests to having been the respondent’s accountant for a very long time and his friend for a number of years.
He states that he has lived in Queensland for the past 10 years and that he regularly would visit Melbourne once every three months. He would occasionally visit the respondent and stay over at his house. Prior to moving to Queensland, Mr S said that he attended the respondent’s home for many dinners. Mr S’s evidence is that he always knew the applicant to be the respondent’s housekeeper and that she was provided free board in exchange for her housekeeping services.
Moreover, Mr S gives evidence that he has prepared the respondent’s tax returns and that he has always been known to him as a single person with no dependants.
Mr S further states that he never observed any love or affection between the applicant and the respondent and was aware that they each lived their own separate lives.
Mr S did the respondent’s tax returns and had always been known as a single person with no dependents. Mr S states that he never did the applicant’s tax returns and he was advised by her that she was on Centrelink payments and too sick to work.
In the course of cross examination, Mr S stated that the respondent had told him that he kept the applicant on as a housekeeper because he felt sorry for her, she was having trouble with her family and he didn’t want to kick her out. He also said that the applicant herself had told him that she has had arguments with her family.[57]
[57] Court transcript 11 February 2021 at page 38.
The following exchange then occurred:
Applicant’s counsel: … could you, from your observations, see any reason why he would need a housekeeper?
[Mr S]:Yes, he’s a hardworking [tradesman], and it’s a large house, and … I didn’t see anything unusual about that [Ms Egan] was there as the housekeeper and gave her accommodation on that basis.
…
Applicant’s counsel: Did you see anything justifying why [Mr Crisanti] needed a housekeeper?
[Mr S]:Yes, because she was a good cook, and he probably got used to having good meals cooked for him, his house kept, while he was off working in his profession.[58]
[58] Court transcript 11 February 2021 at page 39.
Mr S also stated that the respondent introduced him to some of his ‘lady friends’.[59]
[59] Court transcript 11 February 2021 at page 39.
Mr S gave evidence that he stayed over at the Town G property a couple of times and that when he did he slept in the guest bedroom, that the respondent slept in a room near the guest bedroom and the applicant slept in another room on the other side of the hallway.
Mr S further said that:
There was never anything showed that they were a couple or had any affection towards one another at all, other than … what I was told, that she was the housekeeper, and that was it.[60]
[60] Court transcript 11 February 2021 at page 40.
He said that these observations were made in the early 2000s and after he moved to Queensland in 2010. It was put to him that his evidence was being given out of loyalty to his client. In response, Mr S rejected this suggestion and said … ‘I don’t see it as a loyalty thing. … Ms Egan was a good friend of mine as well.’[61]
[61] Court transcript 11 February 2021 at page 40.
Ms R
The respondent also relies on the evidence of Ms R. Ms R filed an affidavit sworn 19 November 2019 in which she said that she has known the respondent for over 50 years. Ms R states that when the respondent and his wife split up, the respondent’s parents helped care for the children until they were too old and frail. In cross examination she stated that this occurred in the late 80s early 90s. She says that the applicant was then introduced as a nanny who would be minding the respondent’s children.
Ms R further states that she and the respondent have remained friends and often spoken over the years about various matters, including relationships that the respondent has had with women. She says that these discussions ‘clearly indicated to me that he was not in a relationship with Ms Egan’.[62]
[62] Affidavit of Ms R sworn 19 November 2019 and filed 20 November 2019 at paragraph 4.
Ms R gives further says that the respondent has often spoken about his relationships over the years with women and it was clear that he was not in a relationship with the applicant.
Mr W’s evidence
Mr W had initially filed an affidavit in support of the applicant’s case.[63] The applicant then indicated that she no longer wished to rely upon that affidavit. The respondent filed an affidavit attesting to Mr W contacting him and advising him that he was recanting what had been put in his affidavit.[64] The respondent then issued a subpoena for Mr W to give evidence. The applicant ultimately objected to Mr W giving evidence and for the reasons given at the time, I allowed Mr W to give evidence in the proceedings.
[63] Affidavit of Mr W affirmed and filed 22 July 2019.
[64] Affidavit of Mr Crisanti sworn 19 November 2019 and filed 20 November 2019 at paragraph 2.
In giving his evidence, Mr W said that he had completed year 8 at school and commenced but not completed year 9. Mr W said that he has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, high functioning autism. Ultimately, after having heard some evidence from Mr W, and for the reasons given at the time, and in particular a view I formed that he was a vulnerable person suffering from a number of disabilities, I formed a view that his evidence would not assist me in determining this matter and I discharged him from being required to give any further evidence.
Other evidence relied upon
The applicant points to the following extrinsic material as evidence of the fact that she and the respondent were in a domestic relationship:
·the fact that she and the respondent were engaged in about 1993;
·her attendance at the respondent’s mother’s funeral;
·reference to her and the respondent as husband and wife in a newspaper article;
·her name on various utility bills; and
·various cards allegedly from the respondent to her.
I will address each of these matters in turn.
Engagement
It is common ground that the parties were engaged in about 1993.
The respondent concedes that they were engaged in 1993, that he gave the applicant a ring and that they had an engagement party which was attended by family and friends. The respondent said that that engagement lasted about two months and then he called it off following her disclosure about her health conditions which impacted her ability to be intimate.
The respondent agreed that the engagement party was a happy occasion.[65] The respondent also conceded that in the early years of the applicant living at his home, they did go out from time to time together. He says, however, that they had not done so for at least the last 20 years or so.[66]
[65] Exhibit A1.
[66] Court transcript 3 December 2019 at page 122.
In the course of cross examination, the respondent gave the following evidence as to the circumstances in which he broke off his engagement with the applicant in 1993:
Respondent: I broke off my engagement straightaway, within a month, after she told me of all her past and the events …
Applicant’s counsel: …and how did you break it off; was it a formal announcement to the world?
Respondent: I just said … that’s the end, finished.
Applicant’s counsel: Yes but just to my client or to everyone else?
Respondent: … everybody yes.
Applicant’s counsel: …so you communicated that to everybody?
Respondent: Yes I did. All my friends, my family, yes.[67]
[67] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 240.
Mr P confirmed that he attended a party to celebrate his father’s engagement with the applicant in 1993 but that it did not last very long.[68]
[68] Court transcript 11 February 2021 at page 15.
Applicant’s role in the respondent’s mother’s funeral
As stated it is common ground that the applicant attended the respondent’s mother’s funeral and gave a eulogy. The respondent accepted that the funeral pamphlet at Exhibit A4 noted him and the applicant together. The respondent did not concede that this was evidence of him and the applicant being a couple.
In this context the following exchange then followed:
Applicant’s counsel: But you knew the pamphlet was being passed around to everybody?
Respondent: I didn’t draw that up.
Applicant’s counsel: but you knew it was being passed around?
Respondent: … what did you want me to do? Send it back on the day my mum was getting buried … Is that what you wanted me to do?...I’m sorry but … I was crying on the day.
Applicant’s counsel: So you didn’t do anything about it?
Respondent: No.[69]
[69] Court transcript 3 December 2019 at page 129.
The respondent explained that the applicant was fond of his mother and his mother was fond of the applicant too and that is why the applicant gave the eulogy at his mother’s funeral.
When it was put to the respondent that he should have stopped her from giving a eulogy, he said ‘Why should I? It was a good thing. I thought it was a lovely thing she did.’[70]
[70] Court transcript 3 December 2019 at page 126.
Initially, the respondent stated that one of the reasons why the applicant attended his mother’s funeral was to care for the children. In the course of cross examination, however, he conceded that the children were all adults in 2004, his youngest child Ms X, was 23 years of age at the time. In relation to this issue, the following exchange occurred:
Applicant’s counsel: So how was she looking after your children when they’re 25, and 23 years of age.
Respondent: She wasn’t supposed to be with me. She was asked to leave, and she was still there. She wouldn’t leave. She had nowhere to go. I felt sorry for her.
Applicant’s counsel: You’re not answering my question sir
Respondent: I am
Applicant’s counsel: Okay. I will ask you for the last time …
…
How do you say she was there at your mother’s funeral in 2004 caring and looking after your children? How do you say that?
Respondent: She wasn’t looking after my children then. She was there because she was still acting as a nanny.
Applicant’s counsel: But a nanny for whom?
Respondent: She was acting as a nanny. She was my nanny and my housekeeper.
Applicant’s counsel: Okay. So she was a housekeeper at this stage, was she?
Respondent: She was a housekeeper because she wouldn’t leave home, and we had come to an agreement – like I told you the last time, we had come to an agreement that if she kept the house clean and tidy, she could stay there, because she had nowhere to go. She was fighting with her family and had no friends. You may see that in one of the affidavits.[71]
[71] Court transcript 3 December 2019 at page 193 to 194.
The respondent’s evidence in this regard was somewhat confused.
Mr P also confirmed that the applicant and his grandmother did have a bond and that explains her attendance at his grandmother’s funeral. In this context, the following exchange occurred:
Applicant’s counsel: … Isn’t that strange? Do you find it strange [Mr Crisanti],– at this stage, my client’s not a nanny, she’s a housekeeper – that she’s at your grandmother’s funeral in 2004 and giving a eulogy as a family member?
[Mr P]:I find it strange yes. But that’s … Dad’s nature was just to keep … her there, and … I would ask him many times why she’s still here, we’re adults now. And he had a deal with her, I guess and … they were both happy … doing their own … living their own lives but in the same house …[72]
[72] Court transcript 11 February 2021 at pages 23 to 24.
The Age Newspaper Article
The wife also points to an article which appeared in The Age newspaper in 2018 reporting on an accident on or near the respondent’s property as evidence that she and the respondent were a couple. That article refers to the parties in the following terms:
[Mr Crisanti], who owns the property where the [accident occurred], said he thought something might have gone wrong when they heard a noise over their house. … [Ms Egan] said it was lucky that the [object didn’t] crash into a nearby construction site … (emphasis added)[73]
[73] Exhibit A5.
The respondent said that a journalist from The Age came to his property, asked questions about the incident which he answered. He told the journalist that he owned the property and what he observed. When he finished talking to the journalist, the respondent said he left and the applicant came over and started talking to the journalist. As such, the respondent says that he did not know what the applicant had said to the journalist.[74] The respondent conceded that he took no action to seek a correction in The Age article after it was published.
[74] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 253.
Applicant’s use of the name Crisanti
The respondent conceded that he was aware that the applicant was regularly using the name Crisanti. When asked about this in cross examination, the respondent said that he was aware that the applicant continued to tell people that she was Mrs Crisanti ‘It didn’t worry me a bit … What could I do? … I can’t stop her saying things to people’.[75]
[75] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 241.
The following exchange occurred in cross examination on this issue:
Applicant’s counsel: [Mr Crisanti] when did you become aware that she was telling everybody that you were a married couple? …
Respondent: Always … Well for the last 20 years?
Applicant’s counsel: Well, 20 or 29 years?
Respondent: No for the last 20 years.
Applicant’s counsel: Well what about before that?
Respondent: Well, she just accepted her role and that was it
Applicant’s counsel: You got engaged in …?
Respondent: Until we got … engaged then she started telling – after that, she told everybody we were … a married couple.
Applicant’s counsel: So since 1993?
Respondent: … to her friends which were unknown to me.[76]
[76] Court transcript 3 December 2019 at page 128.
Applicant’s name on utility bills
It is also common ground that at some point the electricity bill for the Town G property was transferred into the applicant’s name. The respondent explained this on the basis that the applicant was using an exorbitant amount of electricity and would not contribute to the costs. The respondent said that he thought that if it was in her name she might take more care with her power usage. That did not happen according to the respondent and he said that he had to continue to pay the bills or the power would be cut off.
IVO obtained by the respondent
It is common ground that the respondent obtained an Intervention Order (‘IVO’) against the applicant in May 2018 which precipitated her ultimate removal from the Town G property. It was put to the respondent that he told the police that he was in a relationship with the applicant in order to support the application for such an order. The respondent denied having done so.[77] It was put to the respondent by the wife’s counsel that unless he told the police that he and the applicant were or had been in a relationship, the police would have sought a protection order under the Protection Persons Act[78] not the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic).[79] The respondent concedes he signed the application for a Family Violence Intervention Order and that it refers to the applicant as his former partner although he had not noticed that at the time.
[77] Court transcript 3 December 2019 at page 139.
[78] Counsel for the wife referred to the ‘Protection Persons Act’ at the hearing. It is assumed counsel for the wife meant to refer to the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 (Vic).
[79] Exhibit R8.
In re-examination the respondent gave evidence that at no stage did he tell the police that he was in a relationship with the applicant. He said that the police knew that they lived in the same house and ‘probably assumed we were an item’.[80] Moreover, it was submitted for the respondent that it was the police who sought and obtained the IVO in May 2018, not the respondent.[81]
[80] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 254.
[81] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 254.
Offer of life interest
In the course of cross examination, the respondent conceded having had discussions with the applicant about providing her with a life interest in a property. He relevantly said:
I did not say I was going to buy her a property. I was going to buy a property and put her in there as a tenant. … for life because I felt sorry for her and the other reasons she wouldn’t leave home, and I thought this might have been something she would accept. … But she denied that and she says, ‘why should I leave? I’ve got a house here’.[82]
[82] Court transcript 3 December 2019 at page 160.
When asked why he would do this with a nanny or a housekeeper or the like, the respondent replied:
Her duties of nanny had expired. I asked her to leave. She would not leave, so we let it go. It arose again. I asked her to leave. She wouldn’t leave. She broke down and cried and said ‘I’ve got nobody. I’ve got no family. I’ve got not friends. I’ve got nowhere to go.’ I felt sorry for her. So she broke down and cried, as I say. I felt sorry for her and we come to an agreement that she keeps, maintains the house, keeps it clean and cooks meals and she can stay there free of rent.[83]
[83] Court transcript 3 December 2019 at page 157.
The respondent said that this conversation occurred in about 2002. When asked why he allowed the applicant then to remain in his home until 2018, he said ‘she wouldn’t move. … I didn’t have an issue with her maintaining my house clean. I was on my own. I didn’t have anybody at home to be with me. … And she had nowhere to go.’[84]
[84] Court transcript 3 December 2019 at page 158.
When asked, why after allegedly being threatened over numerous years by the applicant, the respondent did not seek legal advice or go to the police, he reiterated:
I just let her go. I … felt sorry for her because of all her mental issues and I really felt sorry for her and I looked after her more than anything else. … I’m still fairly sorry for her now. … I still feel sorry for her and I get told off for that …[85]
[85] Court transcript 3 December 2019 at page 159.
Applicant’s attendance on family holidays
The respondent conceded that the applicant and the respondent went on a holiday together with the children to Adelaide. It was put to him by the applicant’s counsel that this occurred in 1995. The respondent could not recall the exact date, however, he said that it did not go well. The respondent further conceded that he and the applicant went on a cruise. He says that that occurred early on when she was caring for the children and that she attended to care for the children as their nanny.
The applicant did not assert that the parties went on any other holidays alone together.
Company M
In relation to the Company M, in cross examination, the respondent maintained that the name Company M was a reference not to the applicant but to a public servant, Ms Y, who lived across the road. He also conceded that there was a sign for the Company M which had two mobile phone numbers, he paid for both the phones but one of them was a phone which he had provided to the applicant for her to use.
In relation to the Company M, Mr D gave evidence that the respondent had told him that it was the applicant’s business. The respondent denies this and says that this was a business name that he registered and that he, not the applicant, ran that business.
Attendance at wedding in 2016
It was put to the respondent that he and the applicant attended a wedding of the children of some family friends in 2016. Exhibit A10 is an invitation to that wedding which is addressed to ‘Mr and Mrs Crisanti’. The respondent’s evidence in relation to this matter was essentially that the wedding was of the daughter of a builder that he worked with. He says he has known the builder for about 30 years and that he did not specifically recall attending the wedding. When asked about the terms of the invitation, the respondent said:
I don’t explain to people what our situation was. All right?[86]
[86] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 199.
Cards from the respondent
The applicant entered into evidence, various cards which were sent between the parties and which she says were consistent with the types of cards a couple would exchange. When asked why he gave the applicant these cards, including one addressed to ‘my darling Ms Egan’, the respondent said:
Because she lived with us, and she looked after my children. I respect her for that, and that’s why I gave her the cards. … and she gave me cards too.[87]
[87] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 201.
In relation to the use of the term ‘my darling Ms Egan’ he further said ‘I use that terminology to a lot of people, yes.’[88]
[88] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 201.
Notwithstanding these concessions and in particular a concession that he may have written a birthday card to the applicant and signed it off from her dog Z, the respondent maintained that the particular cards shown to him in the course of cross examination were not in his handwriting. Indeed, the respondent said ‘All the E’s and As are all rounded off; mine are pointy. … All my As … they go to a point and not to a round. It’s not rounded off like that.’[89]
[89] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 202.
The applicant also relies upon cards given to her by Mr P and his wife and family, Mr P conceded that he did give the applicant cards and said:
… Well I’ve known [Ms Egan] for 30 years. And although she’s not a family member, she’s still a friend and was a part of my life as a nanny … we gave her a Christmas card or a birthday card just as I would give my next-door neighbour.[90]
[90] Court transcript 11 February 2021 at page 18.
Photos tendered by the applicant
Various photos were tendered into evidence by the applicant which she says establish that the parties did celebrate birthdays and Christmas together.
The applicant also relies upon a photo of her holding the respondent’s grandchild and it was suggested to the respondent that a nanny or a housekeeper would not be engaging with the respondent’s family in this way. In response the respondent said:
Respondent: If my … son came to my house with … his daughter … why couldn’t she cuddle the baby?
Applicant’s counsel: Because, see, she’s a housekeeper?
Respondent: That’s correct.
Applicant’s counsel: You’re in no relationship with her?
Respondent: That doesn’t mean that she has got to be separate and not like kids.
Applicant’s counsel: So you say, despite, in your mind, that you weren’t in a relationship, she was allowed to do everything that one would expect to do as a member of the family?
Respondent: If she loves to hold a child, she can hold a child. I’ve got nothing against that. … There’s no issue. She can hold whichever baby she wants.[91]
[91] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 212; see Exhibit A14.
Mr P acknowledged that there were a number of photos taken of him, his wife and his children with the applicant in the Town G property.
The respondent also conceded that there were photos taken of the applicant in the respondent’s home. Exhibit A12 for example is a photo of the applicant with her dog under the Christmas tree at the respondent’s home. It was not established when this photo was taken or indeed who took the photo.
What is curious about the photos which have been tendered by the applicant is that they do not show the applicant and the respondent together or indeed attending family functions as a couple. Rather they are photos of the applicant in the respondent’s home. It is not surprising that there would be photos of the applicant in the respondent’s home given that she lived there for some 29 years. Nor is it surprising that these photos include ones taken during Christmas or with the respondent’s children or grandchildren. The photos however, do not, of themselves support a finding about the nature of the relationship between the parties.
Applicant’s attendance at Mr P 40th Birthday
The applicant’s counsel put to the respondent that the applicant attended a celebration of Mr P’s 40th birthday. Various photos were produced to the respondent which she said supported this assertion. The respondent conceded that the applicant was present at the family home for Mr P’s 40th. He also conceded that she often gave the children presents for their birthdays. He said that these photos were taken inside his home. The respondent said that the applicant was there because she was still living at the home and had not left when she had been asked to leave.
Mr P also gave evidence about his 40th birthday, which I accept. He said that he celebrated it with family and friends. He was shown Exhibit A15 which is a photo of the applicant with a birthday cake. Mr P said that this taken when he and his wife attended the Town G property. Mr P conceded that the applicant made a cake for him, which he was not expecting but which he was nonetheless thankful for. When asked whether this was unusual, he said no that she had been making cakes for him for 30 years or so and it was therefore not unusual.
Mr P further clarified that his actual 40th birthday party was held in Suburb AB, and was attended by his family and friends, including his father and Ms Q. Moreover, Mr P’s evidence is that the applicant was not invited.
Respondent’s relationships with other women
The respondent states that he had a number of relationships with women over the years including a relationship with Ms AC from 2002 to 2005. He says that he did not tell the applicant about this relationship. ‘She didn’t need to know. She lived in Suburb AD and she never came to my place and there was no reason for me to tell her what I do with my life, and likewise herself with all her friends.’[92]
[92] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 247.
The respondent maintained that the applicant was, however, aware of his relationships with both Ms AE and then Ms E.
The applicant maintained that to the extent that the respondent was having relationships with other women, he was simply being unfaithful to her and that this is not determinative of whether or not the applicant and respondent were in a de facto relationship.
The respondent stated that he did not bring any of the women with whom he had relationship from time to time to the house because of the applicant’s ‘mental issues and … threatening gestures that she would kill anybody if I had anybody else. And she wanted to kill me too.’[93] For example, there was an incident on Valentine’s Day in in 2016 or 2017 when his now girlfriend, Ms E came to the Town G property to see him. He says that he was not at home at the time, the applicant was. He said that the applicant ‘threatened her and chased her with her vehicle to the police station, and tried to run her off the road. … And she went to the police station and reported it.’[94]
[93] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 224.
[94] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 229.
When Ms E asked about this in cross examination, the following exchange occurred;
Applicant’s counsel: When do you say that you were told that they were in a de facto relationship, from when to when?
[Ms E]:At the very beginning when …[Ms Egan] was in her twenties.
Applicant’s counsel: … Do you know … how long that lasted for?
[Ms E]:Probably, two months – two weeks. I don’t know. Not very long. It was very short.
Applicant’s counsel: Yes. And?
[Ms E]:Apparently there was, like, he cared about her but he was never in love with her. I’m sure he cared about her.[95]
[95] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 261.
Importantly, Ms E gave evidence about the Valentines’ Day incident in 2017 which is consistent with that given by the respondent. She says she attended the respondent’s home to say hello to him although he was not expecting her. The respondent was in fact not at home. She says that she knocked on the door but there was no answer so she got in her car to leave. The applicant then approached her and asked who she was and what she was doing there. The applicant then chased her down the street as she drove off at speed ‘waving her hand, demanding me to pull over. Then she chased me to Store AF. Then she chased me into the police station at Suburb AG where I then went into one of the locked rooms … and they had calmed her down.’[96]
[96] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 257.
Ms E says that the police asked if she wanted to press charges but as she did not want to cause trouble between the respondent and the applicant she chose not to press charges. It was put to Ms E that the applicant’s behaviour was not consistent with that of a nanny, housekeeper or border but rather that of a girlfriend. She was asked if she raised this with the respondent to which she replied:
No never…Why would I? ... He told me years before she was in a separate room. The house is a big house … She’s on one side of the house. He’s on the other side of the house, and he … had a padlock on his door as well because she threatened to kill him.[97]
[97] Court transcript 20 March 2020 at page 258.
Applicant leaving the Town G property
It was put to the applicant that contrary to the evidence set out in her affidavit that she left the respondent’s property once she finally had the courage to leave an abusive relationship, that in fact she was removed from the respondent’s home by Victoria Police on 3 May 2018.
In relation to this, the following exchange occurred in cross examination.
Respondent’s counsel You had been expelled from [Mr Crisanti]’s home by the police on 3 May 2018?
Applicant: Because [Mr Crisanti] made a lie.
Respondent’s counsel You were expelled from the home by Victoria Police on 3 May 2018, do you accept that?
Applicant:That one I will have to think about, I’m sorry.
…
Respondent’s counsel … that you left the home against your wishes on 3 May 2018 because Victoria Police insisted that you leave?
Applicant:I didn’t leave the home, I was falsely kicked out of my home.[98]
[98] Court transcript 2 February 2019 at page 24.
In response to a question from the court as to what the applicant says happened on 3 May 2018, the applicant said:
… That was false allegations [Mr Crisanti] had made …
… I went to the police station and they told me the next day I have to go to the Magistrates’ (court) in [Suburb AH] and it was the Magistrate in [Suburb AH] who apologised to me and said ‘I’m sorry [Ms Egan], I have to correspond with Family Law’ and I got evicted through the Magistrate of [Suburb AH] not the police. Because [Mr Crisanti] made a lie, your Honour.[99]
[99] Court transcript 2 February 2019 at page 25.
The applicant further referred to her leaving the respondent’s property variously as:
•…when I falsely got booted out of my farmhouse;[100] and
•…when he had me booted out of the farm …[101]
[100] Court transcript 2 February 2019 at page 27.
[101] Court transcript 2 February 2019 at page 31.
Application for bush fire recovery payment
It was put to the applicant she had applied for a bush fire recovery payment and in doing so declared that she was not in a relationship at the time. A copy of the application form was annexed to the respondent’s affidavit sworn 7 August 2019 at Annexure A12. When asked whether she had read the respondents affidavits filed in these proceedings, the applicant said:
Well, you know, I read a little bit of his affidavit, and then it just made me sick, so I didn’t read … any more of it, to be quite honest.[102]
[102] Court transcript 2 February 2019 at page 59.
When the application form at A12 was shown to the witness and she was asked whether she had signed it, she said the signature did not look like her signature. When asked directly by the court whether she had signed the document, she said:
If that was the $1,000 granted for the bushfire relief, I went with [Mr Crisanti] to the place in [Suburb AJ]. So we could both receive the $1,000 bond.[103]
[103] Court transcript 2 February 2019 at page 60.
The following exchange then occurred with Judge Bender:
Judge: Did you sign this form?
Applicant I don’t recall … doing that your Honour…
Judge:Where in any material filed by you had you refuted that you were the author of this document? … Where in any affidavit filed by you after the swearing of this affidavit did you say – I didn’t do that. It wasn’t me. It must have been someone else. Because I assume that’s what you’re now saying.
ApplicantNo. Well, I’m just saying that that’s not usually how my signature is your Honour.
Judge:No I’m not asking you that, madam. I’m asking you did you fill in this form?
Applicant:I could have filled in – I did fill in a form, back in the bushfire days for the government grant of $1,000, but I don’t know if it was this form, your Honour.[104]
[104] Court transcript 2 February 2019 at pages 60 to 61.
When it was put to the applicant that question 16 on this form asks whether the person filling it in had a partner and the answer provided was no, the applicant first said:
Well at the time, my partner, [Mr Crisanti] was with me.[105]
[105] Court transcript 2 February 2019 at page 61.
The following exchange then occurred:
Respondent’s counsel: So were you telling Centrelink the truth?
Applicant:No. When you’re under duress and you’re in a 29 year relationship and you do a forgery.
…
Respondent’s counsel I’m asking you ... did you lie to Centrelink?
Applicant:Under duress, yes. [106]
[106] Court transcript 2 February 2019 at page 62.
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The applicant seeks a declaration under section 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’) that the parties were in a de facto relationship.
Section 4AA(1) relevantly defines a ‘de facto relationship’ as follows:
(1) A person is in a de facto relationship with another person if:
a. the persons are not legally married to each other; and
b. the persons are not related by family…; and
c.having regard to all the circumstances of their relationship, they have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.
Working out if persons have a relationship as a couple
(2) Those circumstances may include any or all of the following:
a. the duration of the relationship;
b. the nature and extent of their common residence;
c. whether a sexual relationship exists;
d.the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and nay arrangements for financial support, between them;
e. the ownership, use and acquisition of their property;
f. the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;
g.whether the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law of a State of Territory as a prescribed kind of relationship;
h. the care and support of children;
i. the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.
(3)No particular finding in relation to any circumstance is to be regarded as necessary in deciding whether the persons have a de facto relationship.
(4)A court determining whether a de facto relationship exists is entitled to have regard to such matters, and to attach such weight to any matter, as may seem appropriate to the court in the circumstances of the case.
(5) …
(6) …
The applicant bears the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that the parties were in a de facto relationship.
In Jonah & White [2012] FamCAFC 200, the Full Court of the Family Court considered the issue of what was required to establish that parties were in a de facto relationship. Relevantly, the court said:
32.It is immediately apparent that the touchstone for the determination of whether a de facto relationship exists is the finding that the parties to it are a ‘couple living together on a genuine domestic basis’.
…
35It is also unnecessary for the disposition of this appeal … to decide whether … a finding of a de facto relationship could be made absent any of the indicia to which the section refers. Of course to be a ‘couple’ it is necessary for there to be a mutual intention to have such a relationship.
36.The effect of sub-s(5) on the determination of whether parties have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis is to import into it the understanding that a person can … maintain two simultaneous relationships. That one of the parties asserted to have been in a de facto relationship was, at the same time, in another relationship, whether de facto or married, is a matter to be taken into account when considering the circumstances of the relationship and the indicia in s 4AA(2). However the fundamental question remains to be determined and now we turn to that.
…
43.We must observe, however, that the appellant’s emphasis on the words ‘living together’ imports a somewhat artificial focus. The matter for determination was not solely whether the parties were “living together” at the relevant time. The Court must find that they were ‘as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.’
In this case, it is correctly submitted for the respondent that the question before the court is slightly more nuanced than simply whether the parties were in a de facto relationship at any stage over the course of the 29 years that they shared the same accommodation, but rather the applicant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the parties were in a de facto relationship which had not broken down by 1 March 2009.
Relevantly, the respondent points to item 86 of Schedule 1 of the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008 which provided:
86 De facto relationships that broke down before commencement
(1) Subject to item 86A, Parts VIIIAB and VIIIB and subsection 114(2A) of the new Act do not apply in relation to a de facto relationship that broke down before commencement.
‘Commencement’ for the purposes of section 86 is 1 March 2009.
I now turn to each of the factors in section 4AA(2).
The duration of the relationship
It is common ground that the parties have lived in the same household (albeit they have moved various times) for almost three decades. This weighs in favour of a finding of a de facto relationship, however, is not determinative.
Nature and extent of their common residence
As indicated above, the parties lived together from the late 80s or early 1990’s to May 2018.
The parties continued to live together even though they moved a number of times during this period. The respondent’s own evidence is that the parties shared the same bed for part of this period although the respondent’s evidence, which I accept, is that this ceased when the Town G home was completed in 2007/2008.
I accept the respondent’s evidence, however, that from about 2007/2008 onwards, he installed a deadlock on his bedroom door to keep the applicant out of his room. Irrespective of the nature of their relationship in the early 1990’s, by this time, I find that they were no longer involved with each other romantically or physically. Rather, by this stage, their relationship was one of home owner and border, and had previously been one of home owner and live in housekeeper.
The applicant’s own evidence does not point to a couple who present to the world as such. At its highest, the applicant’s evidence is indicative of a person who, whilst living in the respondent’s home, had become known to the respondent’s family and who developed personal relationships with members of the respondent’s family. As such, she received cards from members of the respondent’s family at times, was photographed with the respondent’s children and grandchildren and was invited to, attended and gave a eulogy at the respondent’s mother’s funeral. I accept the respondent’s evidence that the applicant had a positive relationship with his mother and that this was the reason why she participated in the funeral in that way.
It is telling that in a relationship which the applicant says spans 29 years, the applicant’s evidence at its highest points to so few examples of incidents where she says they engaged in activities which evidence a shared life and presented to the world as a couple.
I prefer the respondent’s evidence as to the nature of his relationship whilst living with the applicant. His narrative is credible and internally coherent, namely that he hired the applicant as a live in nanny, that their relationship briefly progressed to a romantic one with them becoming engaged, that due to her health conditions, intimacy was an issue and the engagement was called off. Thereafter, and certainly well prior to 2009, the relationship between the applicant and the respondent became one of, initially, property owner and live in housekeeper, and then one of property owner and rent free boarder.
Whilst perhaps somewhat unconventional, I accept the respondent’s explanation as to why he allowed the applicant to remain living in his home, namely that he felt sorry for her in light of her various medical ailments and the fact that she had nowhere else to go.
Whether a sexual relationship exists
I accept the respondent’s evidence that following their engagement in 1993, the parties attempted sexual relations but this was not possible. I also accept the respondent’s evidence that they did not engage in any sexual relations thereafter and, moreover, that the respondent called off the engagement shortly thereafter.
As discussed above, whilst unconventional, I accept the respondent’s evidence that the parties shared a bed platonically. In any event, by 2007/2008, I find that the parties no longer shared a bed at all and did not have a sexual relationship.
The degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangement for financial support
In her application to Centrelink the applicant herself stated that she did not have a partner. Similarly, the applicant in an application for bushfire disaster relief payments again stated that she did not have a partner
In this regard I note the applicant’s submissions regarding the comments by the Full Court in Onslow v Onslow [2016] FamCAFC 7 at [69]. I make no finding as to credit, but simply note that there is extrinsic and contemporaneous evidence from the applicant herself as to the nature of her relationship, namely that there was no de facto relationship. I do not accept as plausible, the applicant’s assertion that the respondent forced to her fill this form in in this way.
At its highest, the applicant’s evidence is that the respondent purchased a time share interest in the early 90’s and that he purchased a car for her also in the 1990’s. In relation to the time share, the respondent denies this. But in any event, the applicant herself states that ultimately, the respondent ceased making the requisite instalments and the time share lapsed.
In relation to the car, I prefer the respondent’s evidence that the respondent permitted the applicant to use his car initially as she was required to transport the children around as part of her duties as a nanny. In addition I also prefer the respondent’s evidence that once the children had left home, the applicant paid for a car she purchased and the respondent simply assisted her with the transaction.
On balance, having regard to the totality of the evidence, there is minimal evidence of any financial dependence or interdependence between the parties.
Moreover, to the extent that the applicant lived in the respondent’s home without paying rent, I accept the respondent’s evidence that initially, the applicant was provided with free accommodation in exchange for her assisting with the care of the children, that when the children left home, he offered the applicant the ability to remain in the home in exchange for her undertaking housekeeping duties and that from about 2007 onwards, the respondent actively sought to have the applicant leave his home, but she refused and he did not feel able to remove her until things came to a head in May 2018 and the police obtained an IVO against her.
The ownership, use and acquisition of their property
It is common ground that all real property was held in the respondent’s name. At its highest, the applicant asserts that the Company M at the Town G property was called Company M and that this was evidence that it was her business. In this regard, I prefer the respondent’s evidence that the name of the Company M was related to the local public servant who lived in the same street and was not based on the applicant’s name. I accept that the applicant helped in the running of the Company M in so far as she assisted with housekeeping and the like. However, I find that this was part of the commercial arrangement between the parties that she was provided with free board, whilst performing housekeeping duties.
The degree of mutual commitment to a shared life
The applicant has not demonstrated that there was any degree of mutual commitment to a shared life between her and the respondent. I note that although the applicant denies that she was a nanny or housekeeper, she has not provided any evidence as to how she and the respondent came to know each other and how she came to live with him. I prefer the respondent’s evidence as to the basis on which the applicant came to live in his home.
For reasons previously articulated, I also find that save for a very short period of time in or about 1993, the parties’ relationship was one of mutual economic benefit. Initially, the respondent provided the applicant with free accommodation in return for her assisting with the care of the children. When the children left the family home, the respondent permitted the applicant to remain living in his home in exchange for her providing housekeeping duties.
I accept that at some point in early 1993, the parties decided to become engaged and that this demonstrated some level of commitment at that point to a shared life, however, I also accept the respondent’s evidence that this was short lived and that for the reasons given, the engagement was called off.
I also accept that the respondent then felt a sense of responsibility towards the applicant and allowed her to remain living in his home in exchange for her undertaking housekeeping duties;
I accept his evidence that he felt sorry for her in circumstances where she had a variety of health issues, had poor relations with her family and essentially had nowhere to go.
I accept Mr C’s evidence that when he came to the Town G property, he observed both male and female clothes and paraphernalia in the bedroom, ensuite and walk in robe. However, the respondent has provided an explanation as to why this might have been the case, which I accept.
A few things are to be noted about the evidence relied upon by the applicant from each of Mr C, Mr F, Mr D and Ms E. First, the bulk of the evidence relates to observations made of the parties in the confines of the various properties in which they lived. No one gives evidence about the parties being seen out in public as a couple. Moreover, whilst some of these witnesses say that the applicant referred to the respondent as her husband, none of these witnesses give evidence about the respondent representing the parties as being a couple or in a de facto relationship. Save for those witnesses who repeat assertions made by the applicant herself, the observations made and attested to by each of these witnesses as to the interactions they observed of the parties, are equally consistent with a relationship of variously a nanny, a housekeeper and a border as they are with that of a de facto relationship.
The absence of significant evidence by the parties, or anyone else, of their shared lives is telling, particularly in a relationship said to span almost 30 years.
I accept the respondent’s evidence and that of the respondent’s son that the parties effectively lived their own lives, did what they wanted during the day and on weekends and then returned to the home they shared in the evening. This is not evidence of a mutual commitment to a shared life.
The evidence of Mr D at its highest is that the applicant introduced herself as the respondent’s wife, that he saw the applicant working on the Town G property and that the parties appeared to be like a couple.
I give limited weight to the evidence of Ms E. Her evidence again reflects what the applicant told her about the nature of her relationship with the respondent, moreover it relates to a period very early on in the parties’ relationship, and around the time of the parties’ engagement in 1993. It certainly does not assist in determining the nature of the parties’ relationship after 1 March 2009.
To the extent that the applicant relies upon electricity bills in her name and also the fact that the respondent signed a form describing himself as her partner, I make the following observations. Firstly, the respondent has provided a plausible reason to explain why the electricity bill was in her name. Secondly, one would reasonably assume that in a de facto relationship which spanned almost 30 years, there would be a plethora of documents which evidenced joint decision making and joint interests as one would assume there would be numerous people who would come forward and attest to such a longstanding relationship. The absence of these things weighs against, although is clearly not determinative of, a finding that the parties were in a de facto relationship.
Moreover, whilst it is the case that section 4AA(5) makes it clear that a de facto relationship may exists even if one of the parties is married or in another de facto relationship, I accept the evidence given by the respondent and supported by Ms Q, Ms R and Mr S about the fact that the respondent was involved in other relationships with women during the period from 2002 onwards.
Even if I were to accept that the applicant had a genuinely held belief that she was in a de facto relationship; that is also not determinative. What is required is that the court is satisfied that there is a mutual intention to be a couple. I accept that at least from 2007 onwards, and irrespective of his intention prior to that date, the respondent did not have any intention of being in a relationship with the applicant. I accept his evidence that he had tried, unsuccessfully, on numerous occasions to have her leave his property.
The care and support of children
As stated, I accept the respondent’s evidence that the applicant initially came into his home with the express purpose of being a live in nanny and assisting with the care of his three children.
Over the years, she developed relationships with at least Mr P and his family, however this did not extend to such a close relationship that the applicant was invited to attend significant events such as his 40th birthday.
The reputation and public aspects of the relationship
At its highest, the applicant’s evidence is that she:
·attended the respondent’s mother’s funeral in 2004 and delivered a eulogy;
·was referred to in the funeral pamphlet for that funeral alongside the respondent in a way which conveyed that they were a couple;
·was invited to the wedding of a friends’ child as Mrs Crisanti;
·was referred to in a newspaper article as the respondent’s wife; and
·the respondent was glowing to Mr B about the applicant’s work ethic.
I accept that all of these things happened. However, I also accept that in large part the references to her as Mrs Crisanti were either the result of her own use of that term or assumptions made by people about the nature of her relationship with the respondent.
As stated, what is telling in the applicant’s case, is the dearth of evidence in this regard for a relationship which spanned almost 30 years. Relevantly, she has not called evidence from friends who have known the applicant and respondent as a couple, who have socialised with them frequently and regularly, who have taken holidays or gone on outings together as one might expect to be the case in what is claimed to be such a long standing relationship.
The applicant also relies upon the fact that the respondent obtained an IVO under the Family Violence Act 2008 (Vic) on the basis that they were former domestic partners. The evidence is that the police took out the IVO on the basis of a statement from the respondent. Whilst I accept that if the parties were not in a domestic relationship, the appropriate course would have been for a different process to have been initiated, this is not a determinative factor in assessing the true nature of the parties’ relationship.
There was evidence that cards were given to the applicant by members of the respondent’s family. This is not significant evidence to support the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the respondent.
It is submitted for the applicant that the respondent’s offer to purchase a property for the applicant to live in is further evidence of the nature of their relationship and that his explanation that he felt sorry for her was not plausible. I do not agree. I accept that the respondent allowed the applicant to remain living in his home well after he would have liked and I accept his evidence that this was because he felt sorry for her. He gave evidence, which I accept that she told him that she had nowhere else to go and that this was why he allowed her to remain. He also gave evidence that she told him that she was having difficulties with her own family. This too is supported by the applicant’s concession that she obtained IVO’s against a number of members of her own family.
Contrary to the applicant’s submission, I accept that although unusual, the respondent genuinely wanted to help the applicant. His evidence that he took her to various medical appointments is further evidence of his attitude to the applicant. That does not however, evidence that he wanted or in fact was in a genuine domestic relationship with her.
CONCLUSION
Relationships can of course be as varied as they are numerous. In determining whether two people are in a de facto relationship, the court is required to have regard to the relevant statutory provisions outlined above. These factors must guide the court in its ultimate determination of whether the parties, having regard to all the circumstances of their relationship, have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.
On balance, having regard to the totality of the evidence, I find that the applicant has not established that they do have such a relationship. Irrespective of the applicant’s hopes or indeed her own perspective, she has not established on the balance of probabilities that the parties have lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. Even if I am wrong about that and it could be said that the applicant has established that the parties were in a de facto relationship in 1993 and shortly thereafter when they were engaged, I find that this relationship came to an end shortly thereafter and certainly by 1 March 2009.
The respondent has given evidence, which I accept, that following an incident on new years’ eve 2006 he moved into the guest bedroom installed a deadlock on the door and slept in that room. As noted by the respondent in his closing submissions, when asked about the deadlock, the applicant in cross examination ‘responded by asserting that she too had a deadlock on her own bedroom door as though the issue was who was more in need of protection, rather than the fact in issue for the court, namely whether these people were living together as a couple, or were they just individuals living in the same house?’ [107]
[107] Applicant’s written submissions at paragraph 32.
I agree with these submissions and find that parties placing deadlocks on their bedroom doors (to keep the other out) is not consistent with a relationship ‘as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis’.
I therefore find that by 2007, the respondent had asked the applicant to leave his home on numerous occasions. I also find that the parties had ceased sharing a bedroom and indeed he put a deadlock on his bedroom door.
Leaving aside his evidence that he had engaged in other relationships since the early 2000, from at least 2007/2008, the respondent had made it clear that he did not wish to live with the applicant on a genuine domestic basis. They continued living together, that is true, but that was more in the nature of landlord and boarder basis, albeit rent free.
For each of these reasons, I therefore make the orders set out at the commencement of these reasons.
I certify that the preceding two hundred and seven (207) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Deputy Chief Judge Mercuri. Associate:
Dated: 10 November 2021
0
2
0