Saravinovska v Saravinovski (No 6)

The matter before the court involved a dispute between a mother-in-law and a daughter-in-law regarding property interests, domestic support, and the validity of a mortgage. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the daughter-in-law, who had provided domestic support to the broader family, was entitled to a share in the property owned by the mother-in-law, and whether the support provided was "for fee or reward" under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. Another issue was the validity of a mortgage given by the daughter-in-law to the mother-in-law, which was challenged on the grounds that the recited advance had not been proven.

The court addressed several evidentiary issues, including the use of affidavit evidence despite the deponents' lack of mental capacity, and a late application for an expert to examine a videotape for authenticity. It also considered the failure to call a solicitor in relation to waived client legal privilege matters, drawing an inference under Jones v Dunkel. The court found that the representations made by the parties regarding their close personal relationship were not in dispute and that the daughter-in-law's support was not provided "for fee or reward." The mortgage was held to be of no force or effect due to the failure to prove the recited advance.

The court concluded that the property interests should be adjusted in light of the close personal relationship, rather than a de facto relationship, and ordered a redistribution of the property interests accordingly. The late application to inspect the videotape was denied, and the failure to call the solicitor resulted in an adverse inference. The pleadings were amended to conform to the evidence given, and no further orders were required.