Briginshaw v Briginshaw

1. Pursuant to r 10.13(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), the Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order made in the absence of a party.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. There are multiple parties in this matter, which has had a long and complicated procedural history.
2. Proceedings were commenced by the applicant on 14 November 2017. A final hearing was commenced before a different judge - and aborted - in September 2021. Eventually, the threshold question - whether the parties had been in a de facto relationship and for what periods - was set down before me to commence on 4 February 2024. Only the applicant and first respondent are required to participate in this threshold hearing.
3. The parties were not ready to commence the hearing in February 2024 - with both parties by then being self-represented and advising the Court they were not ready to proceed. The respondent had not filed any trial material. The matter was adjourned and set down for hearing on 9 July 2024.
4. At the hearing on 9 July 2024 the respondent sought an adjournment. He said he had been unwell and unable to complete his trial material. The respondent was advised that day that if he did not file trial material, he may be unable to adduce evidence at the final hearing and be limited to cross examining the applicant and making submissions only. He was directed to read all his affidavits before the final hearing commenced.
5. Also at that hearing the respondent was directed to file an Outline of Case.
6. The matter was relisted to 25 November 2024. However, the matter was listed for mention on 23 October 2024 at the request of the applicant. She advised the court on 23 October 2024 she was not able at that time to run the proceedings, as she was experiencing significant personal difficulties.
7. The respondent was present in the virtual court room on 23 October 2024 and consented to the adjournment.
8. The matter was re-listed to 22 April 2025. Further trial directions were made on 23 October 2024, and the respondent was again advised that if he failed to file trial material the applicant may be given leave to proceed undefended, or his participation in the hearing may be limited to cross examination and submissions only. The respondent was directed to file an Outline of Case by 15 April 2025.
9. The respondent has filed no material in accordance with any of my trial directions. The last documents he filed are as follows:

(a) a Response to Final Orders filed 13 June 2023, together with an affidavit in support and a Financial Statement; and

(b) a Notice of Address for Service filed 9 July 2024.

1. The respondent was not present at Court on 22 April 2025. He was called outside Court shortly after 10.00 am and again shortly after 10.30 am. There was no response to either call. He did not seek to join electronically either although he had been sent the Microsoft Teams link to the hearing.
2. The applicant provided a copy of her most recent trial affidavit to the respondent by sending same to his email address. However, it appears there is an error in the email address the respondent has provided in his Notice of Address for Service. The applicant also advised that the respondent's physical address as provided by him in that Notice is also deficient. There is little the Court can do if a party provides incorrect service information.
3. Importantly, however, as already observed, the respondent was present in the virtual court room on 23 October 2024 when the matter was relisted to commence on 22 April 2025 and further trial directions were issued. Accordingly, he was well aware the matter was listed for hearing on 22 April 2025. He was also well aware of his obligation to file material and the likely consequences if he did not do so. He has not contacted the Court advising he had any difficulties with filing material or attending Court on 22 April 2025. The applicant advised she has also received no communication from the respondent for some time - and was not advised that he would not be able to attend and/or participate in these proceedings.
4. Pursuant to s 67 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), I am under a duty to ensure the just resolution of disputes according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. That includes consideration of the efficient use of judicial and administrative resources, and the disposal of all proceedings in a timely manner. Pursuant to the Central Practice Direction, the core principles applicable to family law proceedings include the efficient and effective use of Court resources, the expectation of compliance with orders, and that parties and legal representatives be fully prepared for hearings.
5. As observed by the Full Court in Strahan & Strahan [2019] FamCAFC 31 at [61] parties do not have an absolute right to have an action heard. What is required is that each party be provided with a "reasonable opportunity to be heard". Their Honours went on to quote with approval from Rowe v Stoltze [2013] WASCA 92; (2013) 45 WAR 116 at [51]:

And what is a reasonable opportunity is to be judged nowadays not solely by reference to the interests of the parties but also having regard to the wider interest of other litigants waiting to have cases heard and the public interest in the proper and efficient use of the scarce public resources of the court...What might be perceived as an injustice to a party when considered only in the context of an action between parties may not be so when considered in a context which includes the claims of other litigants and the public interest in achieving the most efficient use of court resources... Moreover, as between parties to an action what constitutes a reasonable opportunity to be heard must be judged having regard to the effect of undue delay, including the stress and costs caused by having litigation hanging over a defendant's head for an undue period.

1. I am satisfied the respondent has had ample opportunity to put his case. He has failed to do so. Conversely, the applicant is ready and prepared. She has complied with orders for filing. The respondent has provided no explanation for his failure to file. There is also no explanation for his non-attendance. He was aware of the trial date - as he was present in the virtual court room when the matter was set down. He was also advised as to the likely consequences if he did not comply with the orders for filing material.
2. Court time is limited. The Court has already provided the respondent with a significant indulgence - having adjourned this threshold hearing at the respondent's request in July 2024. In circumstances where the applicant is ready and compliant, and where the respondent has simply failed to file and failed to attend - with no explanation - I am satisfied it is appropriate for the matter to proceed undefended.

1. As already observed the only issue which currently falls to be determined is whether the applicant and first respondent were in a de facto relationship and if so for what period.
2. In her further further amended Initiating Application filed 19 March 2020 the applicant sought a declaration pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") that a de facto relationship existed between the parties from June 2005 to February 2016. In her outline of case the applicant asserts the parties were in a de facto relationship between April 2005 and February 2016. At trial, the applicant confirmed the starting date of the parties' de facto relationship was June 2005.

1. The applicant relied on the following affidavits:

(a) her trial affidavit filed 27 February 2025;

(b) the affidavit of Mr T filed 3 November 2023;

(c) the affidavit of Ms U filed 17 November 2023;

(d) Case Summary dated 3 July 2024; and

(e) Outline of Case dated 26 March 2025.

1. In addition she tendered a number of documents which she said corroborated her evidence as to the existence of a de facto relationship.
2. The applicant brought the Court's attention to a number of statements made by the respondent in affidavits filed by him on 22 August 2018 and on 13 June 2023 which she said provided further corroboration of the parties' de facto relationship.

1. The meaning of a de facto relationship is defined by s 4AA of the Act. The essential test is whether or not the parties had a "relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis"; s 4AA(1)(c).
2. The existence or non-existence of any particular circumstance or fact is not determinative, and no particular finding of any particular fact is required to lead to an overall determination that the relationship was a de facto relationship. None of the matters referred to in s 4AA(2) takes precedence over any other, and the weight I attach to those factors is as seems appropriate in the circumstances of this particular case: see Denys v Kellett [2022] FedCFamC1A 223; Jonah & White (2012) FLC 93-522; Sinclair & Whittaker [2013] FamCAFC 129; (2013) FLC 93-551.
3. As observed by the Federal Court in Lynam v Director-General of Social Security [1983] FCA 274; (1984) FLC 91-577 at 79,663:

... Each element of a relationship draws its colour and its significance from the other elements, some of which may point at one direction and some in the other. What must be looked at is the composite picture. Any attempt to isolate individual factors and to attribute to them relative degrees of materiality or importance involves a denial of common experience and will almost inevitably be productive of error. The endless scope for differences in human attitudes and activities means that there will be an almost infinite variety of combinations of circumstances which may fall for consideration. In any particular case, it will be a question of fact and degree, a jury question, whether a relationship between two unrelated persons ... meets the statutory test.

1. Accordingly, I am required to look at the "composite picture" and consider all the elements of the relationship in order to determine whether the parties had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis, and if so, when they did so. This is not an exercise of discretion but rather "an evaluative factual determination, taking into account the criteria set out within s 4AA of the Act"; per Austin J in Cantu & Galloway [2023] FedCFamC1F 993 at [25].
2. That a relationship may appear unusual does not mean it cannot be a de facto relationship. Indeed, the case law makes it clear that many differently expressed relationships can appropriately attract the legal definition of de facto.
3. As set out in s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) the standard of proof in these proceedings is to a balance of probabilities. The applicant bears the onus of satisfying that ordinary civil standard. Essentially, the Court must have "reasonable satisfaction" of the alleged facts; see Dixon J (as he then was) in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 370.
4. For the reasons that follow, I find that the parties were in a de facto relationship from June 2005 to February 2016. Jurisdiction to grant financial relief between the parties under Part VIIIAB of the Act is therefore enlivened.

1. The applicant's evidence is that the parties met in April 2005 and went on their 'first date' in April 2005. She had, at that time, just commenced working in the respondent's business.
2. In June 2005 the applicant, at the invitation of the respondent, moved in a property at V Street, Suburb W ("V Street") owned by him. She initially paid rent, but that arrangement ceased fairly promptly. It is the applicant's evidence that the respondent regularly came over to V Street and stayed there with the applicant three to four nights per week. He otherwise stayed at the home of his then wife Ms Nazari with whom he has three children - which he continued to do until 2012.
3. It is the applicant's evidence that initially when the parties commenced their relationship they were both seeing other people. She said by the start of 2006 she had ended her relationship with her then boyfriend. She said that in April 2006 the respondent said his relationship with Ms Nazari was at an end. However, he continued to visit her home in order to co-parent their children, taking the children to and from school on the days he stayed there. The applicant said the respondent told her that he slept separately to Ms Nazari and that there was no physical intimacy between himself and Ms Nazari save on one occasion when they were drunk.
4. In 2008 the parties secured rental accommodation in Suburb O. The applicant lived in that property and the respondent continued to stay there for part of the week and otherwise spent a few nights at the home of Ms Nazari and their children.
5. In about mid 2009 the parties moved into a property at X Street, Suburb Y ("X Street"), which had been purchased by the parties through a trust. Again, the applicant lived in that property and the respondent continued to stay there for part of the week, and otherwise spent a few nights at the home of Ms Nazari and their children. That arrangement continued for about six months before the parties purchased a property at Z Street, Suburb AA ("Z Street"). The applicant again lived in that property, and the respondent continued to spend time at Z Street, and at the home of Ms Nazari.
6. The applicant said that as the respondent's children got older the respondent stayed at Ms Nazari's home less frequently and stayed more frequently at the home with the applicant.
7. In January 2011 the respondent became bankrupt. In December 2011 the applicant also became bankrupt.
8. In late 2012 the parties purchased a property at BB Street, Suburb CC ("BB Street") and moved in together for about eight months. The applicant's evidence is that from that time the parties lived together full time. BB Street was subsequently sold and the parties then purchased a property at DD Street, Suburb EE ("DD Street") and lived there together from about late 2014.
9. In early 2015 the parties began looking for engagement rings together. They also looked for a 'weekender' and purchased a property at R Street, Suburb S ("R Street"). However, unbeknownst to the applicant the property was actually purchased in the name of a corporate entity with which she has no involvement.
10. In 2015 the applicant said she began to experience significant anxiety and panic attacks. She said by that time the parties were again experiencing financial difficulties. In addition, the respondent had undiagnosed mental health issues including severe anxiety and depression.
11. In around mid-2015 the applicant went to stay at her brother's house. The respondent attended at the home unannounced. He refused to leave the premises and the police were called.
12. In mid-2015 the respondent then went to her parents' home in Queensland. She said at that time she determined not to return to Melbourne, but she says the relationship continued - with the respondent flying up to visit her at her parents' home on a number of occasions. He also assisted the applicant with the purchase of a property in Queensland.
13. In late 2015 the respondent was diagnosed with a number of mental health conditions, including severe anxiety and depression and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD").
14. In late 2015 the parties arranged to take a holiday together to the United States, incorporating a cruise. They travelled together in early 2016. However, the applicant said following their return to Australia she found the respondent's erratic behaviour too difficult to be around.
15. She says the parties then ended their relationship in late February 2016. Shortly after that time the parties appear to have commenced discussions about an appropriate property settlement between them.
16. X Street was sold in late 2016. The applicant retained the net proceeds. Z Street was sold in late 2019, at a loss.
17. The respondent has been sued by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation for in excess of eight million. Judgment has been obtained, and both DD Street and R Street are the subject of freezing orders.

1. It is the applicant's evidence that the parties commenced dating in April 2005 and that by June 2005 they were in a de facto relationship - with the applicant having moved into a home owned by the respondent. It is her evidence that between 2005 and 2016 the parties lived together in a variety of properties - with the respondent spending some time at the home of his former wife in order to spend time with his children. The applicant said the relationship endured until early 2016 - even though she moved to Queensland in mid-2015. She said notwithstanding that move, the parties continued with their relationship - with the respondent travelling to Queensland every three to four weeks, and with the respondent then assisting her to purchase a property there. She said the parties took a three-week holiday, including a seven-night luxury cruise, in early 2016. However, after the end of that holiday the relationship came to an end. Accordingly, she asserts the relationship spanned about 10 and a half years.

The nature and extent of their common residence

1. The applicant says from mid-2005 she moved into V Street which was owned by the respondent. It is her evidence that at the start of the parties' relationship, the respondent stayed with her about three to four nights a week and that whilst she initially paid rent, that ceased reasonably promptly. She said the respondent met the mortgage payments for the property and the rates and insurances. In the respondent's affidavit he confirmed the applicant lived at V Street rent free from 2005/2006 (paragraph five and 22 of his affidavit filed 22 August 2018). He also confirmed that he stayed "up to three...and perhaps four nights" each week with the applicant.
2. In 2008 the applicant says the parties moved from V Street to a rental property in Suburb O where they lived for 12 months. That is admitted by the respondent (at paragraph 27 of his affidavit filed 22 August 2018). It is the applicant's evidence that the respondent met the rental payments on that property.
3. The parties then lived in X Street purchased by the applicant through a trust structure for about six months, before moving in together into Z Street, again purchased by the parties through a corporate structure. The respondent acknowledged that he lived in the X Street property although he said only for a "short time" (paragraph 27 of his affidavit filed 22 August 2018).
4. The parties lived in the Z Street property together between about early 2010 to late 2012 - with the applicant living there full time and the respondent staying there multiple nights each week. In late 2012 then moved to a unit they purchased in BB Street, where they lived together on a full-time basis. They then sold that property and purchased DD Street which they moved into in late 2014.
5. The applicant says the parties remained living together, full time, in DD Street until she went to stay with her brother in mid-2015. The respondent refers to "living at [DD Street]" at paragraph 40 of his affidavit filed 22 August 2018.
6. As already observed, it is the applicant's evidence that the parties did not live together full time until 2012. She acknowledges that when not staying with her, the respondent stayed at the home of Ms Nazari and their three children. That arrangement continued until 2012 when the parties lived together full time. It is also the applicant's evidence that the frequency with which the respondent stayed at the home of his children diminished over time - and conversely the time that he spent in the home with the applicant increased.
7. The applicant said that the respondent kept all his clothes and personal effects and belongings at the homes he shared with the applicant - and that he packed a bag whenever he went to stay with his children. She said the parties both contributed to furnishing the various homes they occupied - each contributing items and on occasion shopping together for furniture.

1. The applicant says the parties had a sexual relationship - and that they were intimate frequently throughout the period she says they were in a relationship. The applicant acknowledges that the respondent had several affairs during their relationship.
2. It does not appear to be in dispute that the parties engaged in an intimate relationship from 2005. The applicant says that continued up until the parties finished their cruise together and separated in early 2016.

The degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangements for financial support between them.

1. It is the applicant's evidence that whilst she initially was paid for the work she undertook in the respondent's business, that ceased at some point. She said the respondent's businesses were struggling and he became bankrupt in January 2011. She said that for the first five years of the parties' relationship they lived "largely off my credit cards" which they were also unable to service, leading to her also becoming bankrupt in December 2011.
2. There is corroboration of the parties' financial interdependence in the affidavit of the respondent filed 22 August 2018 - in which he confirms that he provided funds to support the applicant, including meeting her credit cards which had been used for the parties' living expenses. He also confirmed that there were times he was financially dependent on the applicant and other times she was financially dependent on him. He deposed in his affidavit filed 13 June 2023 inter alia that:

I was financially dependent on the Applicant 2010-2011. I was bankrupt from 2010-2013, in which the Applicant supported me from 2010-2011....I supported the Applicant from late 2013 until the middle of 2015

1. The applicant says that for most of the relationship, the parties continued to earn an income and contribute their earnings towards their joint living expenses.
2. The respondent also acknowledged in his affidavit filed 22 August 2018 that he paid the mortgages and rental outgoings on the properties in which he and the applicant lived and provided the applicant with a weekly allowance.
3. It is the applicant's evidence that in around 2014 the respondent's business was doing well. She commenced a postgraduate qualification. She said she received a scholarship of $25,000 per year whilst studying which she contributed to the parties' living expenses. She was also working part time as an educator and she contributed that income as well.
4. The applicant said in 2014 and 2015 the respondent provided her with $1,000 per week - which was his contribution to household expenses - including for the costs of the housekeeper and food. In a document tendered by the applicant following the respondent being audited by the Australian Taxation Office it is confirmed that the respondent made a significant financial contribution towards expenses for the home shared with the applicant in at least the years 2014 and 2015.
5. The respondent in his affidavit filed 22 August 2018 also referred to providing the applicant with $1,000 per week. He also deposed that the applicant "had access to my credit card and withdrew money from the card for her own use, in addition to the $1,000 which I paid her".

1. It is the applicant's evidence that the parties purchased a number of properties together.
2. It is the applicant's evidence that the parties purchased Z Street in mid-2009 through a trust structure. The parties were the appointors and beneficiaries. She says she contributed about $20,000 and he about $15,000 to complete the purchase. She lived there full time and the respondent stayed there for at least half of each week.
3. The parties also purchased BB Street in late 2012 for $200,000, where they lived together. The applicant's evidence is that parties contributed $70,000 to that purchase and then she paid about $15,000 towards renovations. The property was sold, and the proceeds of about $100,000 were then applied to the purchase of DD Street.
4. DD Street was purchased in mid-2014 for $1,275 million. It was purchased through C Pty Ltd as trustee for a trust for which the applicant is the sole appointor and primary beneficiary. The parties acquired a mortgage of about $1,020 million for which the applicant is guarantor. The parties lived there together.
5. In about mid-2015 the parties found another property they wanted to purchase at R Street, Suburb S. Again, this property was purchased through a corporate structure. The applicant paid the initial holding deposit and she was involved in the negotiations for purchase with the selling agent. The applicant said this property was purchased to be a 'weekender' for the parties - and she was surprised to later discover the property was purchased in the name of a company with which she had nothing to do.
6. When the applicant moved to Queensland, it is her evidence that she and the respondent jointly agreed to purchase a property at FF Street, Suburb GG. Again this was purchased through a corporate structure - and both parties were beneficiaries of the trust. The respondent provided her with $75,000 to secure that purchase. That property has now been sold. The applicant retained the proceeds of about $70,000.

The degree of mutual commitment to a shared life

1. It is the applicant's evidence that the parties purchased homes - and shared them together - with a view to increasing their joint wealth. She said she attended to household chores on behalf of the respondent including attending to the cooking, cleaning, washing up and shopping. She acknowledged that for the last year of the relationship the parties did employ a housekeeper who attended to much of those tasks.
2. It was also the applicant's evidence that she often drove the respondent to and from his medical and allied health appointments as well as taking him to and from work and various work commitments. She was also often responsible for reminding him of appointments and commitments he had, as she said his ADHD meant he often forgot appointments. The applicant tendered an email from the respondent to her dated 30 September 2015 in which he continued to keep her informed about his schedule of appointments with his psychologist.
3. In early 2015 the parties became engaged. They spent time together looking at rings and stones for the engagement ring. The applicant tendered emails that corroborated that the parties were looking for engagement rings in March and April 2015.
4. As already set out, the applicant deposes to several property purchases made together.
5. I note that in an email sent by the respondent to the applicant on 16 April 2016, the respondent apologises for his poor behaviour. He wrote

I am extremely sorry to u, the last thing I ever wanted was to end up like this with u......my soulmate"

(as per the original)

1. In that chain of email correspondence, the parties also engaged in settlement discussions. There is reference to the settlement that Ms Nazari received from the respondent - with the applicant saying in light of what Ms Nazari received, "I really feel like I am getting a raw deal". The respondent responded that Ms Nazari "had an unencumbered property when we met, really you did very well, the range was 20 to 30 and u got above". The applicant responded, "its just you went through so much of our money". The respondent then wrote:

U were always right , blind as a bat I was 1! U must have been so frustrated!

I know, it devastated me too , makes me very sad to think what we could have done with it all ....... it might have been a very different life for both of us .. . ..

Lost a couple years on that one .

(as per the original)

1. The tone of this correspondence supports the applicant's assertion that the parties had been in a committed de facto relationship, with a mutual commitment to a shared life.

The reputation and public aspects of the relationship

1. It is the applicant's evidence that at all times she asserts the parties were in a de facto relationship they presented as a couple in public. She said the respondent attended her family's Christmas Day celebrations and many of her family's birthday events. She produced some photographs showing the parties together at her family home over Christmas in 2010. She said the parties always spent New Year's Eve together and Valentine's Day. They also attended work functions together. They holidayed together including travelling overseas in about 2012, and interstate and overseas on separate trips in 2013. The applicant produced some photographs of the parties together on the 2013 overseas holiday.
2. In addition, the applicant said the parties took mini-trips away together - for instance going to another city one Easter.
3. It was the applicant's evidence that when the parties travelled together, they slept in the same bed at the same accommodation. She said when they went on an interstate trip they met up with another couple and went out together for dinner, as a couple.
4. The last holiday the parties took together was in early 2016. They spent about seven nights together on a cruise ship. They spent some time in the United States as well - with a total holiday of around three weeks. The applicant said the parties stayed in the same bed and same cabin throughout the holiday.
5. Ms U gave evidence on behalf of the applicant. She worked for the respondent in 2004/2005. She said the applicant told her that she and the respondent had started a relationship about a month after the applicant began working for the respondent. Ms U then travelled overseas in 2005/2006. Upon her return she caught up with the parties. She said they went to dinner and described the parties as looking "very happy together and excited about their relationship and their future plans". She said the respondent told her that whilst he was returning to Ms Nazari's home a few nights a week that was to maintain his relationship with the children and that he had no ongoing relationship with his ex-wife.
6. Ms U says she remained friends with the applicant and visited her and the respondent at their homes in X Street, Z Street and in DD Street. She said on some visits the respondent was not at home, but she saw his personal belongings in the apartment. Ms U said she was aware of the parties purchasing and selling properties together over the years. She was also aware that the parties holidayed together including interstate and overseas.
7. Ms U continued to have occasional dinners or a catch up over drinks with the parties over the years. She said in addition the parties attended functions at her invitation, including a charity event and her son's birthday party. Those events were in 2015 and 2009. Ms U said at both functions the parties attended as a couple.
8. The applicant's brother - Mr T - also gave evidence on behalf of the applicant. He confirmed that the respondent attended family functions from 2006, and that the family regarded him as the applicant's partner.
9. Additionally Mr T also worked on and off in different roles for the respondent. He said when he was working for the respondent if he saw the parties together there at work, he observed them to be openly affectionate towards each other. They also took their lunch together.

1. Whilst the parties did not share a common residence on a full-time basis throughout the entire period of their relationship, I am satisfied the respondent lived substantially with the applicant from mid-2005 and from 2012 the parties lived together full time until mid-2015. Thereafter the parties did not live together in a common residence, but they continued to foster their relationship with frequent visits, an effort to purchase a property, and a final overseas holiday in early 2016. They maintained an intimate relationship throughout the relevant period. They contemplated marriage in 2015 - as evidenced by the efforts made to secure an engagement ring.
2. It is also clear that there was considerable financial support and interdependence - with each party providing support for the other at times. That commenced in 2005 when the respondent allowed the applicant to live in a property owned by him without requiring any payment from her. The respondent also paid rent on behalf of the parties. The parties purchased properties together, both contributing funds to these acquisitions, albeit through corporate entities of which they were the beneficiaries. I note the respondent's concession that the applicant had access to his credit cards in addition to the provision of regular funds from him for at least some of the years. I note further the unchallenged evidence of the applicant of her attendance to caring for the respondent by way of attending household chores and driving him to and from commitments.
3. Lastly, I note the unchallenged evidence of the applicant's witnesses corroborating the public aspects of the parties' relationship over the years - including presenting as a couple at work, and that they attended multiple family functions, and social gatherings together as a couple.
4. Taking the unchallenged evidence of the applicant - and considering the composite picture painted by the conglomeration of the s 4AA(2) considerations of the Act - including some of the admissions made by the respondent in his own material, I am satisfied that the parties had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis from June 2005 until February 2016.

I certify that the preceding eighty-eight (88) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Carter.