Miller v Fallon
[2009] VSC 433
•30 September 2009
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No. 10023 of 2007
| RAYMOND MILLER | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| LYDIA FALLON | Defendant |
---
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: | DALY AsJ |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATES OF HEARING: | 12-17 August 2009 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 30 September 2009 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Miller v Fallon |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2009] VSC 433 |
JUDGMENT
---
PROPERTY – Part IX Property Law Act1958 – Defacto relationship
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr R N J Young | Waters Timms Pty Ltd |
| For the Defendant | Mr G S Lucas | Belleli King & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
Background
The plaintiff, Mr Raymond Miller, is a 54 year old disability pensioner with two young adult children, who he has raised since the sudden death of his wife in 1991. In 1992, shortly after moving to Victoria from Tasmania, he met the defendant, Ms Lydia Fallon, who was at the time working at a motel in Cranbourne. Mr Miller was a guest at the motel, and his nephew knew Ms Fallon’s family. At this time, Ms Fallon, then in her late thirties with five children (ranging in age from seven to 21), was divorced, and living in her home at Taylor Street, Cranbourne (“Taylor Street”). Over the following few years, the social connection between Mr Miller and Ms Fallon developed into an intimate relationship. However, during much of this period Ms Fallon was also in a relationship with a Mr Mark Barwise, who lived with her at Taylor Street.
Mr Miller claims that he lived with Ms Fallon at Taylor Street on two separate occasions in 1995 and in 1996. This is disputed by Ms Fallon. However, the parties agree that in the second half of 1996, Mr Miller and his children, Lee and Jenna (then ten and fourteen) moved into Ms Fallon’s home at Taylor Street, where they stayed for a period of between several weeks and a few months. Mr Miller and Ms Fallon agree that they intended that they live together as de-facto partners. They were engaged to be married during this period, and Mr Miller bought Ms Fallon a ring. Ms Fallon left her job as a production assistant with Hannaprint, a book bindery (to which she later returned and where she continues to work today) and applied for social security benefits as a pensioner partner, with a view to staying at home with the family.
However, the domestic arrangements at Taylor Street were unsatisfactory in a number of respects, not the least of which was accommodating two adults and six children (mainly teenagers and young adults) in a three bedroom house (with Ms Fallon’s eldest son living with his girlfriend in a caravan in the back yard). While there is some dispute over the reasons behind Mr Miller’s departure from Taylor Street, it is not in dispute that after 1996 Mr Miller and Ms Fallon maintained separate residences: Mr Miller in public rental accommodation in Carrum Downs (from September 1997), and Ms Fallon in properties owned by her at Taylor Street, Camms Road (also in Cranbourne) and, from 2002, at Cooinda Street, Warneet (“Warneet property”), located on the northern edge of Westernport Bay.
The couple continued (or resumed) their relationship in 1997, and continued in an intimate relationship until 2007, when they broke up, for reasons which are in dispute. In December 2007, Mr Miller brought proceedings under Part IX of the Property Law Act1958 (“Act”), claiming a share of the net equity held by Ms Fallon of the Warneet property (the equity is agreed to be valued at $182,000). Mr Miller claims that he and Ms Fallon were in a de-facto relationship for the entire period between 1995 and 2007, living together in both his home at Carrum Downs and Ms Fallon’s various homes, and that he made financial and non-financial contributions to Ms Fallon’s welfare and assets. Ms Fallon has defended the claim on the basis that she and Mr Miller were not in a de-facto relationship during most of this period, but that they were merely “girlfriend and boyfriend“, who maintained separate households, separate family arrangements, and separate finances.
Relevant Legislation and Summary of Issues
5 Part IX of the Act provides for the making of adjustment orders in favour of either or both parties following the termination of a de facto relationship. Section 275 of the Act defines a “domestic relationship” as “the relationship between two people who, although not married to each other, are living or have lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis”. Section 281 of the Act permits the Court to make an order for the adjustment of interests with respect to the property of one or both of the domestic partners after the end of their relationship, provided that, first, the parties lived together in a de facto relationship for a period of at least two years, and secondly, that (subject to a power to extend the time) the proceeding was commenced within two years after the day on which the relationship ended.
Section 285(1) of the Act provides that the Court may make an order adjusting the property interest of de-facto partners that “seems just and equitable to it” having regard to the matters below:
(a)the financial and non-financial contributions made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of the domestic partners to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property or to the financial resources of one or both of the partners; and
(b)the contributions, including any contributions made in the capacity of homemaker or parent, made by either of the domestic partners to the welfare of the other domestic partner or to the welfare of the family constituted by the partners and one or more of the following-
(i) a child of the partners; …
It was agreed that the only asset which could be the subject of a claim by Mr Miller is the net equity in the Warneet property.
Therefore, in order to establish a claim to a share in Ms Fallon’s property, Mr Miller has to show that:
(a)he and Ms Fallon were living in a genuine domestic relationship for at least two years which ended no earlier than 17 December 2005 (that is, up to two years before the proceeding was issued); and
(b)(i) Mr Miller made substantial financial and non-financial contributions to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of Ms Fallon’s property and/or financial resources;
and/or
(ii)Mr Miller made contributions in the capacity as a homemaker or parent to Ms Fallon’s welfare and the welfare of their children.
Ms Fallon agrees that she was living with Mr Miller in a genuine domestic relationship at Taylor Street for a period in late 1996, but not for any other period since they met in 1992. In any event, she disputes the claim that Mr Miller made any material financial or non-financial contributions to her welfare or that of her children.
Accordingly, the main issues are:
(a)whether Mr Miller and Ms Fallon were living together in a genuine domestic relationship during the period from 1995 to 2007 (or any part of that period in excess of two years); and
(b)if so, whether Mr Miller made any material financial or non-financial contributions to Ms Fallon’s (and her family’s) welfare or assets that would justify an order in his favour.
In determining whether the parties were living together in a genuine domestic relationship, I may have regard to the factors set out in section 275 (2) of the Act, being:
(a) the duration of the relationship;
(b) the nature and extent of common residence;
(c) whether or not a sexual relationship exists;
(d)the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between the parties;
(e) the ownership, use and acquisition of property;
(f) the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;
(g) the care and support of children;
(h) the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.
Summary of Contentions and Evidence
In his pleadings, affidavits, and oral evidence in court, Mr Miller contends that:
(a)he commenced living with Ms Fallon in a domestic relationship in September 1995 at Taylor Street;
(b)in November 1995 the couple separated and Mr Miller and his children left Taylor Street;
(c)in June 1996 the parties resumed their domestic relationship at Taylor Street, following which they became engaged;
(d)when Mr Miller and his children resided at Taylor Street, Ms Fallon worked at Hannaprint, and Mr Miller assumed responsibility for all domestic duties, including cooking, cleaning, maintenance, gardening, and caring for both his children and Ms Fallon’s children;
(e)in October 1996 Mr Miller and his children left Taylor Street to live in a caravan park because it was a better living environment for his children, as Taylor Street was overcrowded and Ms Fallon’s children were regular drug users;
(f)in September 1997 Mr Miller went to live at Carrum Downs with his children, where he still lives today;
(g)following his departure from Taylor Street, Mr Miller continued to live in a domestic relationship with Ms Fallon, in that they spent most nights of the week together;
(h)in 1999 Ms Fallon purchased a home at Camms Road, where Mr Miller spent at least three nights per week, while Ms Fallon spent Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights at Carrum Downs;
(i)in 2002 Ms Fallon purchased the Warneet property, and the couple continued to spend most nights of the week together;
(j)since the commencement of the domestic relationship, Mr Miller has contributed to the acquisition, conservation and improvement of the properties owned by Ms Fallon by:
·doing maintenance work on the properties in which she lived;
·doing housework (including cooking, laundry and cleaning);
·looking after Ms Fallon’s children;
·maintaining Ms Fallon’s cars; and
·paying some of Ms Fallon’s expenses (including groceries and firewood), purchasing jewellery and clothing for Ms Fallon, and paying for holidays and outings;
(k)Mr Miller was able to contribute to Ms Fallon’s expenses, as he was able to live comfortably on his social security benefits, and had extra cash resources at his disposal, being the proceeds of sale of his Tasmanian properties and farm machinery and equipment in the early 1990s, and substantial gifts of cash from his children in 2001;
(l)Mr Miller and Ms Fallon often talked about their future they would have together after their children became independent adults, including a plan to travel around Australia together in a caravan; and
(m)In February 2007 Ms Fallon ended the relationship after Mr Miller had contracted cancer and told him that he was of no further use to her.
In response, Ms Fallon:
(a)agrees that the parties lived together in a de-facto relationship for a short time at Taylor Street in late 1996 (but on one occasion only) after her de-facto relationship with Mark Barwise ended in mid 1996;
(b)stated that during the period of his stay at Taylor Street she was not aware of Mr Miller cooking for the family or undertaking any household duties, or caring for her children (who were mainly teenagers and young adults at the relevant time);
(c)contends that the de-facto relationship ended in late 1996 after Ms Fallon had left Hannaprint to stay at home with the family. Mr Miller and his children departed Taylor Street after an argument between the couple about money, when he refused Ms Fallon’s request to contribute financially to the household;
(d)agrees that sometime after Mr Miller’s departure from Taylor Street in late 1996 the couple resumed an intimate relationship, but disputes that they were in a domestic relationship;
(e)states that Mr Miller occasionally visited Ms Fallon at her homes in Taylor Street, Camms Road and Warneet, but he did not stay there on a regular basis;
(f)agrees that she regularly spent Saturday evenings and nights with Mr Miller at Carrum Downs, but worked most Friday nights from 7.00 pm to 7.00 am the next morning, and hosted a regular Sunday evening meal for her family at her home, which Mr Miller did not attend;
(g)agrees that while Mr Miller occasionally bought her gifts of jewellery and clothing and paid for occasional dinners (as did she for him), he did not contribute to her mortgage payments or household expenses, and the costs of any holidays and outings were generally shared;
(h)agrees that Mr Miller serviced and repaired the cars she owned prior to her current car (which she purchased in 2005), but that she paid for any parts required;
(i)agrees that while they saw each other and slept together on a regular basis between 1997 and 2007 (with some interruptions), Mr Miller did not attend functions hosted by her or her family members, such as Sunday evening dinners, weddings, birthday parties, or Christmas celebrations;
(j)contends that she made all decisions regarding the sale and purchase of her properties at Taylor Street, Camms Road, and Warneet without seeking or receiving any input from Mr Miller; and
(k)contends the relationship between them was fiery, punctuated by frequent break-ups, and ended in October 2007 when she told Mr Miller that she planned to allow one of her daughters to stay in the Warneet property while she and Mr Miller went travelling together.
While there is substantial common ground between the parties, there are disputes between them on some critical matters, in particular:
(a) whether Mr Miller lived at Taylor Street on one or two occasions;
(b)the amount of time the parties spent together at their respective residences after 1996: that is, whether the couple was “living together”, albeit in separate residences;
(c)whether the couple acknowledged that the relationship was a de-facto relationship to family members and others, and whether they were perceived to be in such a relationship by family, friends and government agencies;
(d)the degree of involvement of Mr Miller in raising Ms Fallon’s children;
(e)whether Mr Miller paid substantial sums of cash to Ms Fallon which were used by her for living expenses (including mortgage repayments), and purchased groceries, clothing and other goods for Ms Fallon;
(f)whether Mr Miller made a contribution as a home-maker, both while living at Taylor Street and after his departure;
(g)whether Mr Miller contributed to the improvement and maintenance of the properties owned by Ms Fallon; and
(h) the circumstances surrounding their separation.
Many of these issues are directly relevant to the matters which Mr Miller needs to establish in order to persuade me to make an order in his favour, including the matters referred to in sections 275(2) and 285(1) of the Act. To the extent that the issues above are not directly relevant to these matters, they are relevant to the extent that their determination reflects upon the credibility of the parties.
Resolution of these issues is relevant to determining whether the parties were living together in a genuine domestic relationship, and if so, whether Mr Miller made the financial and non-financial contributions to the relationship asserted by him. The differences between the parties’ positions cannot be explained by lapses in memory and differences of perspective. Accordingly, it is necessary to assess and make findings upon the credibility of the parties and the witnesses called by them, and the ability of those witnesses to assist in resolving areas of dispute. While, as might be expected, there is limited documentary evidence available to me, that documentary evidence has been of assistance in determining relevant facts and in assessing the credibility of the parties.
The Parties’ Witnesses and Credibility
Counsel for Mr Miller called the following witnesses in support of Mr Miller’s claim:
(a) Mr Miller himself;
(b) Ms Jenna Miller, Mr Miller’s daughter, now 23 years of age;
(c) Mrs Dealia Leeson, Mr Miller’s next door neighbour in Carrum Downs;
(d)Mr Constantine (Con) Yannas, a friend of Mr Miller and the proprietor of a pizza restaurant in Camms Road, Cranbourne; and
(e) Mr Nigel Catlow, a close friend of Mr Miller.
Counsel for Ms Fallon called the following witnesses in support of her defence to Mr Miller’s claim:
(a) Ms Fallon herself;
(b) Ms Alisa Fallon, Ms Fallon’s daughter, now 31 years of age; and
(c) Ms Jackie Rylatt, Ms Fallon’s sister.
A number of exhibits were tendered by both parties, including social security records for both parties, photographs, a handful of invoices and receipts, documents regarding a number of intervention orders obtained from the Magistrates’ Court, documents regarding the purchase of Mr Miller’s Tasmanian properties, documents regarding Mr Miller’s application for public rental accommodation, and various other documents and items. No banking records were tendered on behalf of either party, although Ms Fallon referred to banking records in her evidence.
Mr Miller gave his evidence over a period of two sitting days. When his counsel commenced examination in chief, Mr Miller gave the impression of being intimidated by the courtroom environment and its procedures, but otherwise appeared to be eager to assist the Court. He attributed any lapses in memory to the passage of time and the medication he was taking for pain relief.
His answers in response to his barrister’s questions were very general in nature, and he had a tendency to depart from giving a precise answer to the question to giving a speech in support of his claim. For example, in response to the question regarding his stay at Taylor Street in 1996:
Did you look after [Mrs Fallon’s] children?”
Yes, always. Actually, the children were my main concern because, as I said, my wife died and I treated her children like my own. I still do.
As the evidence unfolded, it became clear that this statement was not only extravagant, but plainly untrue.
Mr Miller’s demeanour changed abruptly under cross-examination. Within the first few minutes he accused Ms Fallon’s counsel of harassing him. The cross-examination took place over the equivalent of two sitting days and was a difficult experience for all concerned.
Mr Miller took offence at many of Mr Lucas’ questions, and apparently failed to understand the obligations upon Mr Lucas to put to him the basis of his client’s case, despite being informed by his own counsel and me on many occasions that Mr Lucas was simply doing his job, and that if he was asked questions which were unfair, Mr Lucas would be stopped from doing so. He was abusive to Mr Lucas many times, and his anger extended even to his own legal advisers. On a number of occasions, I adjourned the hearing to enable Mr Miller to take a break and calm down. For completeness, I should add that he used his best efforts to be courteous to me.
In my view, Mr Miller’s demeanour, and in particular his hostility to Mr Lucas, was not simply a reflection of his unfamiliarity with the courtroom procedure and the adversarial process, or his health problems. I believe that a significant cause of his difficulties was his hostility towards anyone who challenged his story.
Mr Miller became particularly upset when Mr Lucas took him to documents and his instructions from Ms Fallon which were inconsistent with his story, particularly in relation to his living arrangements and his financial position. He took the opportunity on many occasions to attack and insult Ms Fallon and her children. I believe that I was meant to form the impression that Ms Fallon was cruel, selfish, and used her relationships with men solely for her financial benefit. He implied she and her family were associated with violent criminal activity, and that she regularly threatened his daughter with violence.
Mr Miller sought to paint a picture of himself as a naïve person, who showered Ms Fallon with cash and gifts, and as a man who devoted himself to her welfare and that of their respective children. I have no reason to doubt that he was a devoted father, although his lack of recollection about simple matters regarding his children’s education is somewhat surprising. In short, I was meant to believe that he was an unsuspecting victim of a greedy and heartless woman.
There are numerous examples where his evidence (either in his affidavit or at trial) is inconsistent with objective facts. For example, in his affidavit sworn 28 May 2008, which was tendered in evidence, he refers to an inscription on a watch given to him as saying “To Dad, from your new family” rather than the actual inscription, which omits the word “new”. The difference is significant.
Further, Mr Miller stated that he had access to significant cash resources, which he used to assist Ms Fallon, often in response to her demands. No documentary evidence was tendered to support this contention. What the available evidence shows is that at one stage he owned properties of modest value in Tasmania, which he presumably sold in the early 1990s. If the proceeds of the sale were retained, the best evidence available is that he put them in trust for his children. However, in his declarations to the Department of Social Security and its successors (“social security”), he referred to bank accounts with small or nil balances, and in his statement accompanying his debtor’s petition in 1998, he swore that his only asset was a car and some personal effects.
Having regard to Mr Miller’s demeanour in the witness box, the inconsistencies between his evidence and the objective facts, his vague and extravagant statements, his hostility in response to any difficult question or inconvenient fact, his inability to recall simple matters such as where he lived and where his children attended school in any particular year, the lack of any credible explanation in circumstances where his evidence conflicted with documents or objective facts, and the generality of his evidence regarding what he did for Ms Fallon and her family means that I am unable to accept him as a credible witness. I believe he has crafted a “script” around matters he perceived to be necessary to make good his claim, and when that script was challenged or unravelled, his anger became evident. It is apparent from the evidence of the other witnesses called on behalf of Mr Miller that they were aware of the thrust of the script.
One witness who appeared to be aware of the script was Mr Miller’s daughter, Jenna. In her evidence in chief, she was at pains to give a version of events that supported her father’s case. However, when answering questions in cross-examination which went beyond what she may not have previously considered to have been relevant, she answered Mr Lucas’ questions directly and honestly. Accordingly, while part of Ms Miller’s evidence was of assistance to me in making my findings as to her family’s living arrangements and the nature of her father’s relationship with Ms Fallon, I consider that I must treat the reliability of her evidence with caution.
In stating this conclusion, I stress that I do not consider Ms Miller to be a dishonest person. She struck me to be a mature and pleasant young woman seeking to provide her father, who she clearly cares for deeply, with her loyal support. Many of the relevant events took place when she was a young child, and allowances must be made for that. Also, it is inevitable that much of her understanding of the history and nature of her father’s relationship with Ms Fallon must come from her father rather than from her own independent observations or knowledge.
As for Mr Yannas, his evidence, when considered along with the objective facts (such as the fact that Ms Fallon left Camms Road in 2002) was simply incorrect, and he was therefore of limited assistance to me in resolving any disputed facts.
Finally, while I believe that Mrs Leeson and Mr Catlow were honest witnesses, they were not able to give evidence which went to the issues in dispute. Other potential witnesses for Mr Miller (his son, and his sister-in-law) were not called, but I have not been asked to draw any adverse inferences from his failure to call those witnesses.
As for Ms Fallon, I find her to be, with some reservations, a credible witness. Her recollection of relevant events is good. She is able to recall details such as dates, and the cost of items such as the engagement ring. However, if she didn’t know the answer to a question (for example, whether Mr Miller cooked meals at Taylor Street), she said so. I believe she did to some extent seek to underplay the significance of her relationship with Mr Miller, and I suspect that the difficult nature of their relationship could not be sheeted home to Mr Miller alone. However, her evidence was plausible, consistent and lacked any signs of being concocted. Accordingly, I find that she was a credible witness.
Ms Alisa Fallon (Ms Fallon’s daughter) and Ms Jackie Rylatt (Ms Fallon’s sister) also struck me as credible witnesses. (The evidence of the latter was relatively brief, and was not subject to any serious challenge.) As Alisa Fallon was a young adult in the mid to late 1990s, and worked with her mother throughout that period, her evidence can be considered to be more reliable than that of Jenna Miller, who was still in primary school in 1996. Alisa Fallon was somewhat guarded in giving her evidence, which suggests that she too was keen to downplay Mr Miller’s role in her mother’s life. However, I have no real concerns about her credibility, and no concerns regarding that of Ms Rylatt.
Documentary Evidence
As previously stated, the documentary evidence was relatively limited, but very helpful. The documents tendered in evidence included:
(a) copies of photographs of Ms Fallon, her granddaughter, and Mr Miller;
(b)some receipts for clothing, auto parts, air tickets, and other sundry goods and services;
(c) social security records for both Mr Miller and Ms Fallon;
(d)a file held by the Department of Human Services in relation to Mr Miller’s applications for public rental accommodation between 1993 and 1997;
(e) documents regarding Mr Miller’s bankruptcy in 1998;
(f)documents regarding the purchase and value of Mr Miller’s properties in Tasmania;
(g)documents regarding complaints and intervention orders sought and obtained by the parties; and
(h)a medical questionnaire form signed by Ms Fallon in which she nominates Mr Miller as her next of kin.
Photographs
The photographs tendered show Mr Miller and Ms Fallon at various ages, in affectionate poses, Ms Fallon on holiday at Noosa Heads, photographs of Mr Miller and Ms Fallon’s granddaughter (at different ages), and photographs of vehicles owned by Ms Fallon parked at Mr Miller’s home.
Receipts
The receipts include receipts for tickets and accommodation at Noosa Heads in 2006, for car parts in 2002, for TV repairs in 1998, for clothing in 2002 and 2003, and a mini hi fi in September 2007.
Social Security Records
Ms Fallon’s social security records show that in October 1996, Ms Fallon applied for a sole parent pension, having separated from Mr Miller in September 1996, where she states in her claim form that they only lived together for two weeks. She also states that Mr Miller told her he was moving to Tasmania.
The payment records show that prior to 26 September 2006, Ms Fallon received a small payment from social security (presumably a parenting allowance). She received a larger amount for a few weeks (presumably a partner’s payment), before going to a higher payment in November 1996 (presumably the sole parent payment). In 1997, she applied for a sole parent pension on two occasions as a result of decreased wages. Over the course of 1997 and 1998, she received varying amounts, presumably varying in accordance with her income. In 2002, she applied for sickness benefits from social security. Her claim form shows that prior to claiming sickness benefits, she earned $540 gross per week ($28,000 per annum). The records show she received a disability pension between September 2002 and January 2003. The bundle of social security records also includes an extract from Ms Fallon’s loan statement in 2002, which shows she was paying her home loan repayments of $886.15 per month by direct debit.
Mr Miller’s social security records show that he first received a social security payment on 1 August 1991. No records were tendered in respect of the period between 1991 and 1995. The records show the following annual payments between 1995 and 2009:
1995/1996 $ 4222.20
1996/1997 $ 6756.00
1997/1998 $ 9293.00
1998/1999 $ 9503.70
1999/2000 $ 9533.14
2000/2001 $10,241.07
2001/2002 missing
2002/2003 $10,690.59
2003/2004 $11,760.53
2004/2005 $12,981.00
2005/2006 $12,436.00
2006/2007 $13,332.00
2007/2008 $13,966.002008/2009 $14,572.00
Other social security documents are relevant to the extent they show where Mr Miller lived at various times: St Mary’s and Launceston in Tasmania in 1991, Wendouree West (near Ballarat), Victoria, in 2003, and Gravelly Beach, Tasmania, in November 2005. The 1991 social security records show that he owned his home in St Mary’s outright.
Department of Human Services file
The Department of Human Services’ file sheds further light on Mr Miller’s movements and arrangements between 1993 and 1997. In August 1994, Mr Miller applied for priority housing in Cranbourne, writing from another address in Taylor Street, Cranbourne, where he was a boarder. This application was unsuccessful.
Mr Miller made a further application for public rental housing on 27 December 2006, when he was living in a caravan park in Carrum Downs. He nominated Taylor Street as his contact address. A few days later, he gave his address as a farm in Beaconsfield, Tasmania. The application for priority housing was refused. There is a reference to Mr Miller living at Taylor Street in January 2007.
The file includes several applications for private rental accommodation in early 1997, which were refused. One of the application forms refers to Ms Fallon as a co-applicant. Mr Miller was approved for priority housing in May 1997, and eventually moved into Carrum Downs in September 1997.
Bankruptcy Documents
Mr Miller filed a debtor’s petition on 13 May 1998, with debts of $16,786.00. He was discharged on 14 May 2001. In his statement of affairs, Mr Miller stated that he had no assets apart from a car and household goods. In response to a question regarding any businesses he had operated, he stated that he was in partnership with Catherine Poarn in a livestock business, “Settlement Farm” in Beaconsfield, Tasmania, between February 1997 and June 1997.
The statement, which Mr Miller states was written by a financial counsellor , says, relevantly:
Client started up business with Catherine Angela Poarn. In approx 2/97 came to Victoria for medical treatment. Went back to Tasmania. C.A. Poarn had sold all the livestock and all of farm except for house block also removed my name from business without permission. Sale money not put through business account. I do not have money to fight this in court.
The statement also refers to Mr Miller’s contribution to the partnership as being “fencing, machinery shop”. The reference in the above paragraph to Mr Miller seeking medical treatment in Victoria in February 2007 may be an error.
Tasmanian Properties
Documents were tendered which showed that on 22 December 1989, Mr Miller sold a property at Mathinna, Tasmania, for $15,000, and purchased, with his late wife, a property at Gardiners Creek Road, St Mary’s, Tasmania, for $7,000. The St Mary’s property (or part of it) was valued by the local council at $10,000 in 1990.
Intervention Orders
On 26 February 1999, Mr Miller and his children jointly obtained an intervention order against Ms Fallon. The complaint, which was heard on 10 July 1998, describes the relationship between them as an “intimate personal relationship”, and the complaint form states as follows:
The complainant had a relationship with the defendant for seven years. The defendant on the 27th June 1998 threatened over the phone to smash the complainants door down when he wasn’t home and bash his children with her friends. Further, she has been telling people that the complainant is a heroin addict and is crazy.
The defendant has thrown the complainant and his children out on the street on many occasions.
On 5 November 2007, Mr Miller made a further application for an intervention order. The complaint states:
The defendant and I were in a de facto relationship for about 15 years. We separated in about March 2007 and then got back together for a few weeks until separating again about a month ago. The defendant lied to me and convinced me to get back with her for these few weeks, which I later found out was just to get my money. We have no children from our relationship, however I have 2 children from my marriage previous to this relationship. they are my 21 year old daughter and 25 year old son. On 2.11.07 the defendant rang me and threatened my life and my daughter’s. She said she was going to have my daughter stabbed. She makes these threats as she knows how much my children mean to me and that threats against myself don’t mean anything to me. I have left the defendant on a few occasions and each time I receive threats from the defendant. She has a large family who are all involved in drugs and the sister she is currently living with has been convicted of armed robbery. I believe the defendant is more than capable of carrying out her threats, or getting someone else to carry them out for her. She has threatened to shoot me, kick my door down, have my knee caps broken by her workmates and many other threats. She has thrown rocks through my window, thrown paint on my car and has made several death threats on my answering machine, which I have on tape. She has also sent her children to spy on me and I have had to change the locks on my doors, as she has been inside my home. I am currently undergoing chemotherapy and the defendant’s behaviour is having an extremely negative effect on my health at a time when I am already very unwell. My biggest fear is for the safety of my children as I believe the defendant is capable of almost anything.
On 23 November 2007, Ms Fallon sought an intervention order against Mr Miller:
The defendant is my former boyfriend with whom I have been in a relationship on and off for 15 years, and separated 1 month ago. On 15/10/07 the defendant and I had an argument when the defendant got angry and threatened to kill me and stating he would take two other people with me. The defendant applied for and received an interim order on myself on 5/11/07 and on that day the defendant sent me a text message stating he only wanted his jewellery back. On 6/11/07 I received another text message stating “Shame I loved you so much I can never understand how you stoll [sic] 15 years & treat one so bad. Shame ya never tried. Have a nice day baby xx” and on 7/11/07 another message “See you late January. No you wont. Ever again”. Approximately 2 months ago he turned up at my house shining his car lights through my bedroom window. Also around 2 months ago flyers were outside my workplace advertising me as an escort agency with my photo and the contact numbers both being one digit from numbers. This has caused me embarrassment at work. 8-9 months ago the defendant sent a fax to my workplace and constantly called my workplace. The defendant showed me an internet printout of a yahoo internet profile of a lady which showed a graphic picture, stating it was me. During our relationship when we argued, the defendant would lock the home and prevent me from leaving. I feel threatened and think he will continue to contact me.
Surgicentre Medical Assessment Form
A medical questionnaire signed by Ms Fallon on 25 July 2004 was tendered on behalf of Mr Miller. Ms Fallon’s signature was witnessed by Mr Miller. In response to the question “Marital Status” both the “divorced” and the “de facto” boxes are ticked, and Mr Miller is nominated as the next of kin.
Other Items
Other items tendered include a watch engraved “Happy Fathers Day ’96 Love from Your Family”, a photograph of Ms Rylatt’s wedding party, featuring both Ms Fallon and Mark Barwise, and a certificate which shows Ms Rylatt was married on 23 March 1996.
Given the comments that I have made regarding the credibility of certain witnesses, the documentary evidence is particularly important in establishing relevant facts. Further, the contents of the documents have in themselves assisted me in reaching certain conclusions of various witnesses.
The Issues
When did Mr Miller live at Taylor Street?
Mr Miller and his daughter gave evidence that they lived at Taylor Street on two occasions, once in 1995 and 1996. Ms Fallon and her daughter are emphatic that there was only one period of residence, in late 1996.
In my view, the assertion by Mr Miller that he lived at Taylor Street in 1995 adds nothing to his claim, and simply detracts from his credibility in relation to the remainder of his evidence. In cross-examination, Mr Miller agreed that he did not stay at Taylor Street until after Ms Fallon’s relationship with Mark Barwise ended. The objective evidence available (such as the photographs of Ms Rylatt’s wedding) suggests that this relationship did not end until some time after March 1996.
What seems to have taken place is as follows:
· in 1993, Mr Miller and his family lived in public rental accommodation in and around Ballarat;
· for some periods between 1994 and mid-1996, Mr Miller lived in Cranbourne, possibly boarding with a Ms Gay Ward. In 1995, and possibly 1996, he lived in Tasmania. This period coincided with the period in which Ms Fallon was in a de-facto relationship with Mark Barwise, and to the extent there was an intimate relationship between Mr Miller and Ms Fallon, it was conducted discreetly;
· for some weeks until October 1996, Mr Miller and his family lived at Taylor Street;
· between October 1996 and September 1997, Mr Miller spent some time travelling, and some time living in a caravan park in Carrum Downs. The reference on his statement of affairs in 1998 regarding the Settlement Farm business suggests that he spent most of the first half of 1997 in Tasmania, in or near Beaconsfield; and
· from September 2007, he has lived permanently in Carrum Downs.
Did the parties spend five or six nights a week together after 1996?
Mr Miller asserted that he spent most week nights at Ms Fallon’s various homes and that Ms Fallon spent every Friday, Saturday and Sunday night at Carrum Downs. Ms Fallon says that she spent most Saturday nights at Carrum Downs, but Mr Miller’s visits to her home during the week were infrequent.
The other evidence in support of Mr Miller’s contentions was that of Jenna Miller and Mr Yannas. Ms Miller stated that she believed that her father visited Ms Fallon two or three nights a week, departing late at night. In her evidence-in-chief, she said that she and her brother were looked after by an uncle or auntie or her next-door neighbour. By implication, this took place several times per week for a ten-year period from 1997 to 2007 (some hundreds of evenings).
In 1997 Ms Miller was 11 years old and her brother 15. In my view, it is highly unlikely that her father would leave a girl of her age overnight with only a teenage boy in the house, at least in the first five or so years of that period. I note that Mr Miller’s son, Lee, left home at the age of 18 or 19. I consider that it would be unlikely that Mr Miller would leave a girl in her mid-teens alone all night most nights of the week, particularly given their close relationship.
Neither Mr Miller’s brother or sister-in-law gave evidence in this proceeding (Mr Miller’s brother is now deceased). Mrs Leeson, their neighbour, gave evidence of having seen Ms Fallon’s car at Carrum Downs on weekends but was not asked whether she ever looked after Mr Miller’s children. I can infer that if she was asked, her response would be unhelpful to Mr Miller’s case. In cross examination, Ms Miller gave evidence that her uncle looked after her (as opposed to visited her home) “a good five or six times”. In my view, her evidence in relation to this matter is consistent with Mr Miller visiting or going out with Ms Fallon during the week on an occasional basis.
Ms Miller also gave evidence that her father, at least in the early years of her secondary schooling, carried out the usual morning duties of a parent getting their children ready to go to school. She gave evidence that he would occasionally drive her to school. While it was not directly put to her as such, I gained the impression that Mr Miller was home and up and about on most school mornings. That is inconsistent with Mr Miller driving to Cranbourne or Warneet each weeknight late at night to meet Ms Fallon after she returned from work close to midnight, and staying at her house for a few hours each morning carrying out household chores.
The evidence of Mrs Leeson, Mr Yannas and Mr Catlow did little to assist Mr Miller to establish that he spent his week nights with Ms Fallon. Ms Leeson stated that she saw Ms Fallon at Carrum Downs on weekends for a number of years. There is no dispute that Ms Fallon stayed with Mr Miller each Saturday night, and presumably parts of Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning as well.
Mr Yannas gave evidence that he has known Mr Miller for approximately 10 years (for as long as he has been in a relationship with his current partner), so since about 1999. He gave evidence that he had met Ms Fallon at Mr Miller’s home on a few occasions, and that he would often see her car in the driveway at Carrum Downs (during the week and on weekends). He stated that over this period, Ms Fallon regularly ordered pizza from his restaurant, and that Mr Miller would usually collect the pizza from the restaurant and pay for it, or he would deliver the pizza to Ms Fallon’s house at Camms Road and Mr Miller would be there. He made many such deliveries over the past ten years.
Mr Yannas’ evidence appears to be directed at placing Ms Fallon at Mr Miller’s home on a regular basis (and eating meals there), and supporting a contention that Mr Miller paid for takeaway food for Ms Fallon’s family. Unfortunately, Mr Yannas’ evidence did not hold up well under cross-examination. Mr Miller never asserted that Ms Fallon stayed at Carrum Downs during the week, or that he stayed at Camms Road on the weekends. Further, Ms Fallon left Camms Road to live at Warneet in 2002, some seven years ago. Finally, if Ms Fallon is to be believed about her working arrangements (and there is no reason to disbelieve her), she did not get home from work until close to midnight on each weeknight apart from Mondays, which is inconsistent with a scenario where she regularly ordered pizza for an evening meal with her children and Mr Miller.
Finally, Mr Catlow’s evidence, which was that he has met Ms Fallon a few times at Mr Miller’s house, saw her car there on weekends, and has seen them at the pub together a few times is consistent with either party’s characterisation of the relationship.
Ms Fallon gave evidence that over the course of the period between 1997 and 2007, she worked until 7.00 pm on Mondays, 11.10 pm on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and from 6.00 pm to 6.00 am most Fridays. Her daughter, Alisa, worked the same or similar hours until 2000, and usually travelled to and from work with her mother.
Ms Fallon agreed that she spent Saturday nights at Carrum Downs. She went home on Sunday to host an evening meal for her children. Mr Miller would visit her from time to time at her homes, but did not regularly stay with her during the week.
Alisa Fallon’s evidence was that Mr Miller occasionally visited her mother after work but that such visits were infrequent.
Consistently with my findings regarding the credibility of the various witnesses, I prefer Ms Fallon’s evidence regarding the time she spent with Mr Miller. I suspect she may be underplaying the significance of the relationship to some extent but, in broad terms, I accept that Ms Fallon’s version is closer to the true situation than Mr Miller’s version. The evidence given by other witnesses called by Mr Miller in relation to this issue either did not assist me to resolve any issue in dispute or did not survive cross-examination.
Finally, the evidence of Ms Fallon and her daughter (and, perhaps inadvertently, Ms Miller) simply makes more sense. Ms Fallon worked very unsociable hours for many years. It seems unlikely that a couple who both had children, and were no longer young, would have in place an arrangement whereby Mr Miller would drive across a number of suburbs (and, from 2002, outside the metropolitan area) each night shortly before midnight, leaving his teenage children alone all night, to meet his partner who had just arrived home from working an eight hour evening shift. This scenario is inherently unlikely.
Did the parties hold themselves out to be a de-facto couple, and were they perceived to be a de-facto couple?
Both Mr Miller and Ms Fallon agree that they considered themselves to be a de facto couple during the period Mr Miller lived at Taylor Street in 1996. It is not clear how and why the relationship resumed after Mr Miller’s departure in October 1996.
Mr Miller relies upon two specific instances of acknowledgment: the Surgicentre admission questionnaire in which the boxes “divorced” and “de facto” are ticked, and which refers to Mr Miller as her next of kin. Further, he says that on Fathers Day in 1996, Ms Fallon gave him a watch inscribed “Happy Father’s Day, from your family”. (This was incorrectly described as being “from your new family” in Mr Miller’s affidavit sworn 28 May 2008.)
Further, Mr Catlow and Mr Yannas refer to Ms Fallon as being Mr Miller’s “missus” or “other half”. While this evidence supports a finding that there was a de facto relationship, it is not of itself conclusive. Indeed, it is apparent from their evidence that Ms Fallon did not socialise with Mr Miller’s friends.
Ms Fallon acknowledges that she was in a relationship with Mr Fallon, but it was no more than a “boyfriend-girlfriend” relationship. Apart from one or two Christmases, Mr Miller did not attend family celebrations and functions. She denies ticking the box “de facto” on the hospital admission form (and, to my untrained eye, this tick appears to be in a different hand from the rest of the handwritten portions of the form). She says that she bought the watch for Mr Miller’s children to give to their father, as they had no money to purchase a gift for him for Father’s Day. This is consistent with Ms Fallon making an effort to be a proper step-mother to Mr Miller’s children in September 1996.
In his application for an intervention order in November 2007, Mr Miller describes Ms Fallon as his de facto partner. By contrast, in her applications made a few weeks later, Ms Fallon describes Mr Miller as her former boyfriend. Both applications were made shortly prior to Mr Miller issuing this proceeding in December 2007. By this stage, Mr Miller may well have at least been contemplating issuing this proceeding, while it is quite possible that Ms Fallon was not aware of any pending proceeding (there is no evidence as to precisely when Mr Miller lodged a caveat over the Warneet property). In this context, Mr Miller’s statements in his complaint regarding the nature of the relationship must be treated with some suspicion, as being potentially self-serving. In contrast, Ms Fallon would not have any particular reason to misdescribe her relationship with Mr Miller when making her complaint, as she had not been served with any proceeding.
It is significant that in all dealings with social security and public housing authorities Mr Miller and Ms Fallon identified themselves as separate households, not a couple, except for the period when Mr Miller lived at Taylor Street in 1996. Of course, even if Mr Miller’s story is correct, they may have done so in order to maximise the benefits payable to both parties, and to improve Mr Miller’s prospects of obtaining public rental accommodation. However, that proposition is mere speculation, and, given my overall findings, I could not on the evidence available reach a conclusion that either party had given false information to either social security or the housing authorities regarding their marital status.
Finally, the reference to Mr Miller as “next of kin” on the Surgicentre document does not of itself amount to an acknowledgement of a domestic relationship. Given that Mr Miller attended the medical centre with Ms Fallon, and that Ms Fallon’s children were young adults, it makes sense that Ms Fallon would nominate Mr Miller as next of kin, as he was her long-term boyfriend.
Was Mr Miller involved in raising Ms Fallon’s children?
This issue is relevant to whether the parties were in a de facto relationship (to the extent that such involvement demonstrates a degree of mutual commitment) and, if a relationship was held to exist, whether such a contribution ought to be recognised by a readjustment of property interests.
It is apparent from the evidence of all concerned that, for whatever reason, Mr Miller and Ms Fallon had only minimal involvement in raising each other’s children. Indeed, reading between the lines, it seems to me that the relationship between each of them and the other’s children was indifferent at best, and hostile at worst.
Did Mr Miller make a contribution as a home maker?
Given that I have found that Mr Miller only lived at Taylor Street for a short period in 1996, and did not spend most nights of the week with Ms Fallon, I have no basis upon which to conclude that Mr Miller made substantial contributions as a homemaker.
Did Mr Miller contribute to the improvement and maintenance of the properties owned by Ms Fallon?
Mr Miller stated that he did a substantial amount of work around Ms Fallon’s properties at Taylor Street, Camms Road, and Warneet, with most of the work done at the Warneet property. Again, given that I have found that Mr Miller only lived at Taylor Street, and did not spend most nights of the week with Ms Fallon, I have no basis upon which to conclude that Mr Miller made substantial contributions to the improvement and maintenance of Ms Fallon’s homes, although it is possible that he carried out some light gardening.
Also, Mr Miller has given evidence that he has suffered significant physical disabilities and health problems since a motorcycle accident in 1992. These problems, coupled with his responsibilities for his children, have prevented him from gaining regular paid employment. This evidence is inconsistent with him having carried out anything apart from light yard work on Ms Fallon’s properties, and the servicing of Ms Fallon’s cars.
Did Mr Miller give substantial amounts of cash and goods to Ms Fallon?
In relation to Mr Miller’s contribution to Ms Fallon’s properties and her financial resources generally, Mr Miller states:
(a) he regularly gave Ms Fallon cash to help with her expenses; and
(b) he bought her jewellery, clothing, groceries, and paid for their holidays.
The difficulty facing Mr Miller in proving that he gave large amounts of cash and goods to Ms Fallon is that there is no documentary evidence of those gifts (unsurprisingly), but also no documentary evidence that he had any capacity to do other than what was asserted by Ms Fallon: that is, that he paid for his own household expenses and his share of their common expenses (such as outings and holidays), and that he provided her with occasional gifts of clothing and jewellery.
No documentary evidence was tendered in support of Mr Miller’s assertion in the course of giving his evidence that in the early 1990s he had assets of approximately $600,000 (being land, farming equipment and cash). It appears from the evidence that his land holdings in Tasmania may have been valued in the tens of thousands of dollars, and that any proceeds of their sale were put into trust for his children. However, all of the other documentary evidence suggests that Mr Miller did not have substantial assets: he sought priority housing assistance as early as 1994 to enable him to secure stable accommodation, he was on a pension for the entire period of the relationship, he did not have sufficient funds to pursue his rights against his former business partner in 1997, and he went bankrupt in 1998 with debts of around $17,000.
On the other hand, the evidence from Ms Fallon was that she was in regular employment throughout the bulk of the duration of the relationship. She was not a high income earner, but her income would have been sufficient to meet her financial needs without any substantial contribution from Mr Miller, especially once her children reached adulthood and independence.
Accordingly, I do not accept Mr Miller’s evidence that he provided Mrs Fallon with large amounts of cash during the course of their relationship. I accept that he gave her gifts from time to time, but that that is only what would be expected from a long-term boyfriend.
What were the circumstances surrounding their separation?
Mr Miller states that the relationship ended in early 2007 when he was diagnosed with cancer, and that Ms Fallon told him that he was no longer of any use to him. His daughter gave evidence that she overheard this conversation take place over the telephone, as the speaker phone was on when this conversation took place. Ms Fallon states that the relationship ended after she told Mr Miller that when they travelled around Australia together she would allow one of her children to stay in the Warneet property. She says that Mr Miller was angry at that suggestion, and he accused her of wanting him to support her financially. They argued, and when he left he threatened to kill her.
Resolution of this issue is not critical to determining whether the parties were in a de facto relationship as such, but it is relevant to my assessment of the parties’ credibility.
The best available documentary evidence (the applications for intervention orders in November 2007) suggest that Ms Fallon’s version of events is more likely to be correct. Both complaints refer to money as being an issue in their relationship. Furthermore, there is no independent evidence that Mr Miller has cancer. Rather, it appears from Mr Miller’s own evidence that his health problems and treatment relate to the ongoing effects of his motorcycle accident in 1992, and complications arising out of hepatitis C.
Finally, it is unlikely that Ms Fallon, who was successfully treated for ovarian cancer in 2002 and 2003, would adopt such a callous approach towards another cancer sufferer.
Accordingly, I accept Ms Fallon’s evidence regarding the circumstances of the breakdown of the relationship. This finding is one of a number of reasons why I have doubts about the credibility of Mr Miller and his daughter as witnesses.
Conclusion
In my view, Mr Miller’s claim must fail, on the basis that he has not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that he was living in a domestic relationship with Ms Fallon, other than during a short period in late 1996.
I accept that there may be some circumstances where parties may be found to be “living together” in a domestic relationship while maintaining separate residences. While that may appear to conflict with the ordinary meaning of the words “living together”, the fact that “the nature and extent of common residence” is but one of the criteria by which the Court may take into account in determining whether a domestic relationship has existed suggests that the legislation contemplates there might be a situation where a couple could be found to be living in a domestic relationship even though residing apart, for say, employment or health reasons.
I have referred to the credibility of the various witnesses in detail above. To the extent that Mr Miller’s evidence conflicts with the evidence of Ms Fallon, I prefer Ms Fallon’s evidence. However, even if I accepted the evidence of Mr Miller that he regularly stayed overnight at Ms Fallon’s homes, it is apparent from all of the evidence and circumstances of the case that Mr Miller and Ms Fallon maintained separate households (not simply separate residences) and that the relationship bore few of the characteristics of a domestic relationship within the meaning of Part IX of the Act.
Having regard to the criteria set out in section 275(2) of the Act, I make the following observations:
(a)Duration of the relationship: while it is unclear as to when Mr Miller and Ms Fallon commenced an intimate relationship, it is accepted that the duration is at least 11 years;
(b)The nature and extent of common residence: apart from a brief period in 1996, the couple lived separately;
(c)Whether or not a sexual relationship exists: it was agreed there was a sexual relationship;
(d)The degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between the parties: I accept the evidence of Ms Fallon that she supported her own household and family, and that Mr Miller and Ms Fallon had entirely separate finances. Throughout the entire period of the relationship, she worked long and unsociable hours and considered herself to be “on a good wage”. While I was not informed as to exactly what her income was over the period, I can infer it was sufficient for her to pay her mortgage, pay for food, utilities and clothing, run her car, support any dependent children, and allow for social outings.
(e)The ownership, use and acquisition of property: Mr Miller did not own or contribute to the acquisition of any of Ms Fallon’s houses. His use of the properties was limited to occasional visits (apart from a brief period at Taylor Street in 1996). I accept Ms Fallon’s evidence that she made her own decisions about where to live, and how to manage her financial affairs.
(f)The degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: it is not entirely clear how this could or should be measured, but the extent of the commitment appears to have waxed and waned over the course of the relationship. They became engaged in 1996, but that was taken no further. While Ms Fallon suggested that she believed Mr Miller had other partners at different times, that was never directly put to Mr Miller in cross-examination (apart from some references to “Gay Ward”), and there was insufficient evidence to find that Mr Miller was engaged in relationships with other women during the course of the relationship.
There appears to have been some mutual commitment: the duration of the relationship, the regularity of contact, the fact that they took occasional holidays together, and the fact that in 2007 they planned to purchase a caravan and travel around Australia together indicates a degree of mutual commitment. However, that commitment to a shared life did not extend to Mr Miller having any degree of meaningful contact with Ms Fallon’s family (or vice versa), although there is evidence of Mr Miller having regular contact with her granddaughter.
While I consider that to some extent Ms Fallon has sought to downplay the significance of the relationship, I agree with her characterisation of the relationship as a “boyfriend-girlfriend” relationship. There is also evidence that it was a fiery relationship (as indicated by the existence of the intervention orders), and it is evident from the manner in which he gave his evidence that Mr Miller is prone to anger if he disagrees with someone.
It may well be that had the relationship survived into their more mature years, with the pressure of child rearing behind them, the couple may have agreed to share more of their lives. Indeed, their travel plans suggested that might occur. However, they had not reached that stage by 2007.
(g)The care and support of children: Mr Miller’s evidence regarding his involvement with Ms Fallon’s children was not credible. All of the other evidence, including the evidence of the couple’s respective daughters, was that each party raised their children independently. Ms Fallon did not have any meaningful involvement with Mr Miller’s children, and the limited evidence available suggest that she and Jenna Miller do not like each other. It is significant that Ms Miller could only recall the names of four of Ms Fallon’s five children, and that she has not had any contact with any of them since 1996. Also, Mr Miller was frequently disparaging and critical of Ms Fallon’s children.
(h)The reputation and public aspects of the relationship: while it is apparent that Mr Miller’s and Ms Fallon’s friends and family knew that they were in a relationship, they do not appear to have been a socially active couple. The relationship was “public” in that it was not kept secret, but Mr Miller’s almost complete absence from family functions is not consistent with the relationship being viewed by family and friends being equivalent to that of a married couple. They dealt with social security and public housing authorities as individuals, not as a couple.
Given that I have found that Mr Miller and Ms Fallon were not in a domestic relationship for a significant period, it is not necessary for me to make any assessment of what contributions Mr Miller made either to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of the properties owned by Ms Fallon, to her financial resources, or his contributions as a homemaker and/or parent. However, to the extent that they are relevant, my findings in relation to Mr Miller’s financial and non-financial contributions to Ms Fallon’s welfare would lead me to conclude that even if there was a de facto relationship, those contributions would not warrant an adjustment of property interests in Mr Miller’s favour.
---
0
0
0