ROMANO and REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES
[2024] WASAT 133
•2 DECEMBER 2024
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION ACT 1998 (WA)
CITATION: ROMANO and REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES [2024] WASAT 133
MEMBER: MS N OLDFIELD, MEMBER
HEARD: 17 JULY AND 9 AUGUST 2024
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED 4, 17 AND 22 OCTOBER 2024
DELIVERED : 4 NOVEMBER 2024
PUBLISHED : 2 DECEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S: CC 1291 of 2023
BETWEEN: DIANNA CONCETTA ROMANO
First Applicant
ANGELA ROSARIA ROMANO
Second Applicant
CONCETTA ROMANO
Third Applicant
AND
REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES
First Respondent
KAREN DENISE MALPUSS
Second Respondent
Catchwords:
Births, Deaths and Marriages - Registration of death - Application to amend death certificate - Challenge to existence of de facto relationship
Legislation:
Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1998 (WA)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 13A
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 29(3)(a)
Result:
Application unsuccessful
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| First Applicant | : | P F Chambers |
| Second Applicant | : | P F Chambers |
| Third Applicant | : | P F Chambers |
| First Respondent | : | N/A |
| Second Respondent | : | In Person |
Solicitors:
| First Applicant | : | Mountains Lawyers Pty Ltd |
| Second Applicant | : | Mountains Lawyers Pty Ltd |
| Third Applicant | : | Mountains Lawyers Pty Ltd |
| First Respondent | : | State Solicitor's Office |
| Second Respondent | : | N/A |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Britt v Office of the State Coroner [2022] WASCA 75
Hart v Cooper [2023] WASC 132
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
(The reasons were delivered orally on 4 November 2024 and have been edited from the transcript to correct grammatical errors or infelicity of expression and to insert headings and footnotes.)
Introduction
This is a review of a decision of the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. The Romano family objected to Karen Malpuss being identified as the de facto spouse of the late Luigi Romano in his death certificate.
The single issue was to reach the correct and preferable decision, which required me to form a view as to whether or not Karen Malpuss was the de facto spouse of Luigi Romano as at 13 February 2022.
I have reached a decision in favour of the second respondent and I will now explain why. For ease of expression and without any intent to disrespect, I will refer to the first respondent as simply the Registrar and to the various other parties and witnesses by their first names. Though for simplicity I will use the word 'applicants' when referring to Dianna, Angela and Concetta Romano as a group.
Relevant legal principles
The relevant provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1998 (WA), the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) and the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) were usefully set out in the Statement of Issues Facts and Contentions lodged by the Registrar. They are not in dispute and there is no need to repeat them at length today.
Suffice to say all parties agreed and I am satisfied of the following:
(a)The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.
(b)The issue is not whether there was any error by the Registrar but what is the correct and preferable decision based on the information available to the Tribunal at the time of the review.
(c)The question of whether or not Luigi and Karen were de facto partners was to be determined by reference to the definition of a de facto relationship contained in s 13A of the Interpretation Act.
(d)The factors contained in s 13A do not prescribe the limits of the Tribunal's discretion and other factors which are relevant to the objectives of the Tribunal and its purpose in determining the correct and preferable decision may be taken into account.
The approach in determining the existence of a de facto relationship was outlined in the parties' oral and written submissions. There was no disagreement and I do not propose to restate those principles today, save for one aspect. Much of the parties' evidence related to the living arrangements of Karen and Luigi. It was noted in the WA Court of Appeal decision of Britt v Office of the State Coroner[1] and the WA Supreme Court decision of Hart v Cooper,[2] that s 13A differentiates between living together and residing together. This means persons might 'live together' or have a shared life together without physically 'residing together'.
[1] Britt v Office of the State Coroner [2022] WASCA 75.
[2] Hart v Cooper [2023] WASC 132.
The evidence and witnesses
Some brief observations regarding the evidence:
(a)For the purposes of this oral decision, I am not going to summarise the whole of each witness' evidence but simply refer to those parts I consider most relevant.
(b)I shall refer to a witness' affidavit or statutory declaration as their 'written evidence' and their spoken words in the hearing as their 'oral evidence'.
(c)I have taken into account none of the witnesses were independent. All might be considered to have an interest in the outcome.
(d)Two persons who provided written evidence were not called as witnesses. This meant they could not be asked questions by the parties or by myself. Their evidence must for that reason, be considered more cautiously.
(e)In relation to several witnesses, there were some inconsistencies between the written evidence and the evidence provided on cross-examination. I do not consider these to have been sufficient to make an adverse credibility finding against any witness. I have made findings to resolve inconsistencies to the extent they are relevant to the issue to be determined.
The parties sought and were granted leave to file additional material after the close of the witnesses' evidence. None felt it was necessary to recall any of the witnesses in relation to that additional material.
In their closing written submissions the applicants raised two concerns:
(a)Firstly, in relation to Osborne Park Hospital records lodged by or on behalf of Karen. That concern was later withdrawn and so requires no further discussion.
(b)Secondly, the applicants complained Karen had promised but not then lodged documents obtained from St John Ambulance. The applicants submitted the failure to lodge these documents should attract a finding adverse to Karen in accordance with the rule in Jones v Dunkel.[3]
[3] Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298.
Karen's response in her written closing submissions might broadly be summarised as being that she did her best as an unrepresented person unfamiliar with legal proceedings. She said St John Ambulance had declined to provide records and she was unaware she could have sought a summons for the documents.
The applicants suggested I conclude the ambulance records were not filed because they contained information adverse to Karen's case. Specifically, they suggested I conclude the documents would have demonstrated the symptoms of peritonitis are such that Luigi would have been in agony in the hours before his passing and that Karen either left him to die in pain or was so indifferent to his condition that she was absent from the house until he was close to death or had already died.
The applicants called no expert evidence regarding Luigi's medical condition, symptoms or causes of his death. They tendered in evidence a report which appeared to have been downloaded from the internet, the heading of which referred to chronic kidney disease. None of the authors of that report were called to give evidence. Nor was there any evidence of Karen's activities on the day in question.
The evidence tendered by the applicants is insufficient for me to satisfied on the balance of probabilities of the symptoms displayed by Luigi in the hours leading to his passing and the actions taken by Karen in relation to the same.
Further, the submissions of the applicants do not address the reasons why this is an appropriate situation in which the rule in Jones v Dunkel ought to be applied. I am not satisfied it would be appropriate to do so in this instance.
De facto spouse or not?
I now move to a consideration of factors relevant to the existence or otherwise of a de facto relationship.
Length of the relationship
There is no real dispute there was a relationship of some nature between Karen and Luigi for a significant period. The evidence as to when it commenced differed.
Raffaele Gatto recalled Karen and Luigi being in a de facto relationship for many years. In their statements Melissa Malpuss recalled Luigi moving in with her and Karen shortly after they moved into Alkimos in 2013 and Maureen Cleland thought the de facto relationship started in 2016.
Concetta did not dispute Luigi and Karen had known each other first as work colleagues and when they were doing work on Luigi's Jurien Bay property. Raimondo Romano said he only knew Karen as Luigi's carer, presumably when he became very ill, but he also said his contact with Luigi was quite limited.
The applicants submitted that Daniel Malpuss and Karen had contradicted themselves and each other in their evidence regarding the date of the commencement of the relationship and this adversely affected their credibility. The applicants did not specify how Daniel had contradicted himself on this point. It appears to me his written and oral evidence was both that Karen and Luigi's relationship was brought to his attention in 2013 when they disclosed it to him and he therefore believed they were de facto from that time.
Karen's written evidence stated she and Luigi were in a de facto relationship for about six years before his death. Her written evidence also said they introduced themselves to employees of Spudshed as being in a de facto relationship. The written evidence did not date the Spudshed interactions, but Karen's oral evidence said this would have been in 2011. If so, then the written evidence was internally contradictory.
Karen's oral evidence was that she and Luigi had been in a relationship for roughly 12 years, they met when both working at Spudshed, were boyfriend and girlfriend in 2011 and that she considered they were in a de facto relationship when Luigi moved in with her full time in 2016.
I find Karen's oral evidence, much of it provided in the process of cross-examination, as more credible than her written evidence. It is more consistent with the other witnesses' evidence, is a more likely progression of the relationship in the overall context and does not contain contradictions. There is insufficient information for me to make a finding adverse to Karen in relation to the apparent conflict or error in the statutory declaration. I do not see that it significantly, if at all, strengthened Karen's application to the Registrar. There was no evidence regarding the preparation of the statutory declaration and it could have easily been an error on the part of the solicitor preparing the declaration which Karen did not observe when asked to sign the same.
An issue is that a de facto relationship does not have the same objective reality as a physical thing. Different persons may hold different beliefs as to what constitutes a 'de facto relationship'. Even if all were to agree that it means a relationship of sufficient mutual commitment to be like a marriage, they may have different perceptions as to when or if that occurred.
In this case, Daniel formed that view of the relationship in 2013. On the other hand, Karen felt her and Luigi's mutual commitment only reached that level in 2016. I do not believe this means their evidence must be considered contradictory.
There is no dispute and I accept that Karen and Luigi knew each other and had a relationship in some form or other since approximately 2010.
Whether they resided together
There was no dispute Karen and Luigi lived in the Alkimos house from the time he commenced home dialysis. It was the evidence of Karen and her family that Luigi and Karen resided together for a substantial period prior to that.
Daniel's evidence was that Luigi lived with he and Karen firstly in Kingsley and then in Alkimos and occasionally stayed at Hamilton Hill for work reasons. Karen's evidence was that Luigi started spending occasional nights with her in 2011 and his stays at her house increased in duration and frequency until he moved into Alkimos full time and permanently in 2016. When working nightshift he stayed at Hamilton Hill. Sometimes she stayed with him.
Counsel for the applicants put to Daniel and Karen their evidence of Luigi staying at Hamilton Hill was inconsistent with the statutory declaration of Chantal Drouard that Luigi moved out of Hamilton Hill. Karen disagreed and said that Luigi used a spare bedroom at the house. Daniel thought that perhaps he had been mistaken regarding where Luigi had stayed.
However, the applicants did not explain what Luigi's living arrangements were, if they were not as described by Karen and Daniel.
Concetta's written evidence stated he was living with Chantal Drouard in Hamilton Hill and that he moved out of that property to sell it and use the proceeds to maintain the Jurien Bay property. However, Chantal's statement was that Luigi moved out in 2011. Concetta's written evidence does not state where Luigi lived from that time. Even if Luigi were living at Jurien Bay, on Concetta's evidence he could not have purchased the property until after the Hamilton Hill house was sold, which would have been some time after Chantal's declaration in 2016.
Concetta in her oral evidence said she had picked Karen and Luigi up to take them to Jurien Bay and on later occasions to go shopping. She said she had not observed whether or not they shared a bedroom because she did not go inside the house. That suggests Concetta observed them living in the same house well before Luigi commenced home dialysis.
The applicants submitted that Karen's account of staying with Luigi at Hamilton Hill was contradicted by Concetta's oral evidence that she did not see Karen when she assisted Luigi to move out of Hamilton Hill. However, the time this occurred was never specified and this supposed conflict was never put to Karen. Not knowing when, for what period of time and in what manner Concetta was assisting Luigi at Hamilton Hill and not knowing how Karen may have responded, the details are too vague for me to draw any conclusion.
There was a lab referral from January 2019 that stated Luigi's address as being Concetta's Coolbellup address. I do not consider this sufficient to outweigh other evidence for the following reasons:
(a)Neither Concetta nor Raimondo stated that Luigi was living with Concetta.
(b)The referrer was located in Joondalup and the referee was in Craigie which suggests Luigi was sourcing health care services in suburbs closer to Alkimos than Coolbellup.
(c)An alternative explanation is that Luigi did not update his address with the lab. I do not consider this implausible because Raimondo was apparently still on the electoral roll at Concetta's address[4] although it was clear from his evidence that he lived in his own house and not with Concetta.
(d)A number of other documents identified the Alkimos property as Luigi's address. These documents included material from the Osborne Park Hospital, Fresenius Kidney Care, Shire of Dandaragan and Jurien Bay View Realty.
[4] Hearing Book, page 122.
I am satisfied the evidence established Luigi and Karen were living together at least from 2016 until his passing in 2022. If Luigi's stays away from Karen's home were only temporary and for work purposes, that would not necessarily prevent a conclusion they were living together prior to 2016, but the evidence is insufficient for me to form a conclusion as to when that arrangement commenced.
The nature and extent of common residence
It was Karen's evidence that in 2016 Luigi moved all of his clothes and other possessions to Alkimos and lived with her full time. Prior to that Luigi stayed with her on and off because work duties meant sometimes it was more convenient for him to sleep the night at Hamilton Hill or because he was away for work. Luigi had accounts in his name at the Alkimos address and his home dialysis took place at Alkimos.
The evidence of Karen, Daniel and Melissa was that Luigi cooked for the household when he could. Even when he was confined to a wheelchair, he would help with the meal preparation. Before he became unwell, Luigi and Karen both performed household chores.
Karen said she would sometimes stay overnight with Luigi at Hamilton Hill and sometimes accompany him on the longer deliveries which required overnight stays. They also travelled together up to Jurien Bay.
Although Concetta and Raimondo disagreed with Karen's evidence, they gave little contrary description of Luigi's living arrangements. Counsel for the applicants put to various witnesses that Chantal's statement Luigi had moved out in 2011 was inconsistent with their accounts that he sometimes slept at Hamilton Hill. But they did not explain where Luigi was living if it was not at Hamilton Hill or Alkimos. There was no suggestion Luigi lived with Concetta or Raimondo.
I accept Karen's account, which was broadly consistent with the evidence of Daniel, Melissa and Maureen.
Whether there was a sexual relationship
Karen said she and Luigi shared a sexual relationship from the early days of their relationship until his passing.
Counsel for the applicants suggested this was implausible and tendered a report downloaded from the internet which stated the majority of men with chronic kidney disease experience erectile dysfunction.[5] Karen did not dispute Luigi sometimes experienced this but maintained their relationship nevertheless remained sexual.
[5] The same report referenced in [12].
There were no submissions put to me as to what constitutes a 'sexual relationship' in the context of s13A. The material put to me by the applicants is insufficient to satisfy me that erectile dysfunction precludes the existence of a sexual relationship.
I accept Karen's evidence and am therefore satisfied there existed a sexual relationship between Karen and Luigi.
Degree of financial dependence or interdependence
There was little dispute Luigi contributed to Karen's expenses. The extent of that contribution was unclear. Karen's evidence was that Luigi assisted with the cost of food and assisted her to pay bills such as shire and water rates when she was unable to afford them. In cross‑examination Karen said she paid small expenses for Luigi, such as parking and petrol when taking him to and from the hospital.
Although Daniel, Raffaele, Melissa and Maureen all said Luigi contributed to the household with Karen, they had differing ideas as to precisely how he contributed. I do not find that surprising given that Raffaele, Maureen and after 2014 Melissa lived separately, both Melissa and Daniel were Karen's children and might not be expected to know all of her and Luigi's financial affairs and Daniel said when he was younger, he had lived between Karen's and her ex‑husband's houses.
It is notable no differentiation was made between the contributions made by Luigi when he was working as opposed to when he stopped work. His change of financial circumstances might be another reason for the discrepancies between the witnesses' understandings regarding Luigi's contributions.
Raimondo's written evidence was that Karen did not contribute financially to Luigi, and also supported Concetta's written and oral evidence that Luigi's financial contributions to Karen were in the nature of a payment to Karen for her care services. In his oral evidence Raimondo conceded he had no direct knowledge regarding Luigi's contributions.
I accept Karen's evidence regarding Luigi's financial contributions. Karen's evidence was in broad terms corroborated by her family. Concetta did not dispute the fact of contributions by Luigi, but the implication to be drawn from them.
Concetta and Raimondo gave written and oral evidence of the financial and other support they provided to Luigi or to Luigi and Karen. Concetta conceded this was not directly relevant to the question of whether or not a de facto relationship existed, because the members of her family helped each other and she would have provided support even if Luigi had been married.
The applicants' closing submissions, whilst referring to the evidence of Raimondo's and Concetta's financial support of Luigi, did not explain why or how that evidence was probative of the non‑existence of a de facto relationship. A committed couple might still be subject to financial hardship and it might be speculated Luigi might have been more likely to be in financial hardship if he were financially supporting a new family as well as the children he had had with his ex-wife.
The ownership, use and acquisition of property
There was no dispute the Alkimos house was in Karen's name and the Hamilton Hill and Jurien Bay houses were in Luigi's name. There was no suggestion either contributed to the other's initial acquisition of the properties.
There was evidence of joint use. Luigi and Karen (together with Concetta and Peter) on several occasions travelled up to Jurien Bay to perform maintenance and renovations to the house and garden area. Concetta said they did this every weekend for a year or more.
The evidence of Daniel and Mellissa was that Luigi performed household chores and maintenance at Alkimos. And as noted earlier, it is not contested Luigi contributed in some manner to the costs of running the household.
There is no evidence of Karen's or Luigi's ownership, use or acquisition of other assets.
Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life
A fundamental part of the applicants' evidence was the contention there was no or minimal commitment by Luigi to a shared life with Karen. The evidence of Concetta and Raimondo was to characterise Luigi's living with and contributing financially to Karen as a relationship of convenience where Karen gained a financial advantage for allowing Luigi to live in her house and then in caring for Luigi when he was unwell.
I do not accept the applicants' characterisation of the relationship for several reasons:
(a)It is evident the relationship between Luigi and Karen, and their living together, commenced well before the significant deterioration in his health. I note the discussions during the hearing of when Luigi's health deteriorated. The applicants suggested Luigi commenced living with Karen only when he required home dialysis. However, I note the documents from Fresenius Kidney Care in the hearing book and lodged after the final hearing indicate they provided home dialysis care training in 2019.
(b)There is no evidence Karen gained a financial advantage from caring for Luigi.
(c)It was not disputed that Karen and Daniel assisted Luigi in managing home dialysis and then as he became more unwell provided other personal care such as feeding and bathing him. Luigi could have received this care in hospital. Concetta gave evidence Karen promised she would look after Luigi and not put him in a home. This is a significant responsibility to accept and to continue to accept over years. One which I believe is more likely to be undertaken by people who consider themselves family than people who have a relationship of convenience.
(d)It appears Fresenius Kidney Care Australia, which provided Karen and Luigi with training on the home dialysis machine, had recorded Karen as Luigi's next of kin.
(e)Dr Brian Siva in his letter dated 7 January 2019, described Karen as Luigi's wife and noted she had offered to donate a kidney to Luigi. I believe it is more likely the offer to be a living organ donor to a specific person is more likely to be by someone in a close personal relationship as opposed to a relationship of convenience.
In my view, the evidence is more consistent with Karen undertaking this responsibility for Luigi because of the closeness of the relationship between them, rather than because it was financially beneficial.
Karen and her family said she and Luigi were engaged to be married. Concetta said Luigi had promised her he would not marry Karen. It is not necessary for me to resolve this conflict. A couple might be engaged without being in a de facto relationship. A couple might be in a de facto relationship without having any intention to marry. Whether or not there was an intention to marry has limited relevance in determining the question of whether they were in a de facto relationship.
Karen said Luigi provided her with emotional support, attended various medical and psychologist appointments with her. When she was in hospital, he visited her and in the most recent admission he visited every day. She went with Luigi to his doctors' appointments and when he was admitted to hospital she visited him every day.
The evidence of Daniel, Melissa and Maureen is consistent with this, and the applicants did not dispute it. Instead, Concetta challenged the claim to a committed relationship on two other bases:
(a)Firstly, Concetta claimed Karen had not informed Centrelink of her relationship with Luigi. Karen said she had. Neither produced any other evidence. There is insufficient basis for me to make a finding on this allegation.
(b)Secondly, Concetta said Luigi had told her Karen had spent weeks at her sister's place because she was suicidal and that on one occasion Luigi had said Karen had medicated herself and spent the day in the bedroom. There is no evidence of this beyond Concetta's allegation, though Karen's reaction might indicate there was at least some truth to it. Even if I were to accept Concetta's statements as entirely true, they would not be particularly helpful. They could equally be incidents in a committed relationship as incidents indicating lack of a marriage-like relationship.
For all these reasons, I accept the evidence of Karen, Daniel, Raffaele, Melissa and Maureen and conclude it establishes Karen and Luigi exhibited a commitment to a shared life since at least 2016.
Care for and support of children
Karen and Daniel gave evidence of the care and support Luigi provided to Daniel and Melissa. Melissa's written evidence was consistent with this.
The applicants did not dispute the role Luigi played in the lives of Daniel and Melissa. Concetta's written evidence was that Luigi remained in contact with and provided emotional care to his ex‑wife and their two children. None of them gave evidence of this and Concetta provided no further details.
One might expect Luigi to maintain connection with and support the children he had with his ex-wife. That does not preclude his taking the role described in the lives of Daniel and Melissa. I accept their and Karen's evidence.
The reputation and public aspects of the relationship
Karen and her witnesses gave evidence that Karen and Luigi attended family events as a couple. They were known to holiday together and buy gifts for each other. Daniel's written evidence was that after they were engaged, they introduced themselves as a married couple.
It is relevant to note the letter of the Coroner's Registrar to Karen dated 12 January 2023 described Luigi as Karen's partner, Fresenuis Kidney Care had recorded Karen as Luigi's next of kin and partner and Dr Siva referred to Karen as Lugi's wife.
The applicants did not dispute this evidence. In his email to the Registrar, Raimondo stated he understood Luigi was not in a relationship with anyone. However, his email also said he had not seen Luigi for a while and in oral evidence said his contact with Luigi was limited to the occasional phone call. He said this conclusion was not from anything Luigi had said and it would have come from other family members. Raimondo also said Karen had attended his home with Luigi and numerous other people.
I accept the evidence of Karen, Daniel and Raffaele and to a lesser extent Melissa and Maureen and am satisfied Karen and Luigi presented themselves and were seen as a committed couple.
Other factors
There are allegations surrounding Luigi's death and his funeral which might be considered relevant factors additional to those listed in s 13A.
Death
Firstly, it was alleged on behalf of the applicants that Luigi's death was evidence Karen did not take adequate care of him. It was further alleged that Karen did not call the ambulance quickly enough.
I enquired as to the relevance of this line of questioning and counsel for the applicants stated this was evidence Karen and Luigi were not in a loving relationship.
These contentions lacked substantial probative value for a number of reasons:
(a)Firstly, there is nothing in s 13A which states a de facto relationship has to be loving.
(b)Secondly, no doctor or other health professional was called to give evidence. I would have needed expert evidence regarding Luigi's condition, not speculation by family or the filing of unverified material from the internet.
(c)Thirdly, even if I were to accept the contentions of the applicants as true, they were not probative regarding the relationship:
(i)A de facto spouse might arguably let their partner die, either in a belief that was preferable than allowing them to continue to suffer or in expectation of their rights of inheritance as the de facto spouse.
(ii)Anyone regardless of relationship might be expected to assist another person in pain. Even if Karen were nothing more than a carer, as alleged by the applicants, she would still be expected to respond to any expression of pain by Luigi. Perhaps more so, because presumably a carer would be less burdened by personal distress at Luigi's condition.
Essentially, the allegations even if proven would prove nothing about the presence or absence of a de facto relationship because a conclusion either way is equally arguable.
Funeral
The second claim said to be an additional factor was Concetta's written evidence that 'within minutes' of Luigi passing, Karen contacted her and absolved herself from any responsibility regarding funeral arrangements. Accordingly, it was up to her to deal solely with the funeral home, Coroner and other authorities and that she paid the entire cost of the funeral.
Raimondo's written evidence was that Karen contacted his brother Peter to ask that their family arrange to collect Luigi's body.
There was no independent evidence corroborating these allegations and there is insufficient evidence for me to accept them as true:
(a)Peter was not called as a witness.
(b)Karen denied she had made the calls to Peter or Concetta, saying she had not made arrangements for the funeral because there had to be an autopsy and then she was told by Herrington Funerals the funeral was closed and she was not permitted to attend. I note this is consistent with the oral evidence of Raffaele that he had been told by Herrington Funerals he was not permitted to attend Luigi's funeral and Daniel's oral evidence that Karen had said they had been told they could not attend.
(c)Documents provided by the Registrar, being the incomplete death certificate, the 'internal use' death certificate and correspondence from the Coroner's Court satisfy me that Luigi's death was subject to an enquiry by the State Coroner.[6] Therefore, I expect the Coroner would have collected Luigi's body from the Alkimos house. Given that Karen was with Luigi when he died, I expect Karen was informed of this at the time. This seems inconsistent Raimondo's statement that Karen asked Peter to collect Luigi's body.
(d)Concetta's statement that it was her sole responsibility to deal with the Coroner appears inconsistent with the evidence the Coroner's office also wrote to Karen.
[6] Hearing Book pages 77, 78 and 91.
None of the witnesses explained how it came to be that Luigi's body was released to a funeral home which had been given instructions to exclude Karen and her family. There is no basis upon which I can conclude this should be taken as evidence of the relationship between Karen and Luigi. It seems to me more likely it is evidence of the relationship between Concetta and Karen or between their respective families.
Conclusion
Overall, based on all of the material before me and for the reasons described, I have concluded the correct and preferable decision is that there was a de facto relationship between Karen and Luigi as at the time of his death. Accordingly, the decision of the Registrar to record Karen as Luigi's de facto partner at the time of his death on the register of registrable events is affirmed.
Orders
The Tribunal orders:
1.Pursuant to s 29(3)(a) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the first respondent's decision dated 3 August 2023 to record Karen Denis Malpuss as the de facto partner of Luigi Antonio Romano at the time of his death on the register of registrable events is affirmed.
2.The application is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS N Oldfield, MEMBER
2 DECEMBER 2024
0
4
3