Fairbairn v Radecki

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. Before the Court is a dispute about the existence of a de facto relationship, to be determined as threshold issue in the context of the substantive application for the adjustment of property interests.
2. Ms Tahar alleged a relationship first commenced in January 2020 until separation on 13 September 2023. She says theirs was a genuine de facto relationship for a range of reasons including her contentions that they: lived together intermittently at some 5 different residences; engaged in a degree of financial intermingling; jointly acquired property; and presented as a couple to their families.
3. Mr Galdan contended that theirs was limited to a "sugar daddy" relationship. He said that the height of it was a period of irregular sex over some 10 months in 2021 and then, from November 2021 until 16 May 2023, regular sex where he paid or gifted economic benefits in return for sexual favours.
4. For the reasons that follow, I have decided that there was no de facto relationship. Accordingly, the application must be dismissed.

1. Ms Tahar filed the following materials on which she sought to rely:

(a) Affidavit of Ms Tahar affirmed 23 April 2025 (excluding exhibit MST-12) (marked "A1");

(b) Affidavit of Ms Tahar affirmed 23 May 2025 (annexures 17-28) (marked "A2");

(c) Financial statement dated 5 August 2024 (marked "A3"); and

(d) Letter of Dr B dated 26 September 2024 (marked "TB4").

1. For completeness, Ms Tahar had filed another affidavit on 23 May 2025 which she did not seek to rely on in these proceedings.
2. Mr Galdan filed the following materials on which he sought to rely:

(a) Application in a proceeding filed 14 May 2025;

(b) Affidavit of Mr Galdan affirmed 9 May 2025;

(c) Affidavit of Mr Galdan affirmed 13 May 2025;

(d) Tender bundle marked "TB1" - pages 2, 6, 13, 14, 18, 22, 289 and 291;

(e) Tender bundle marked "TB2" - pages 9, 13, 17, 18, 61, 79, 96, 106, 118, 121, 123, 124 and 128; and

(f) Tender bundle marked "TB3" - pages 19, 67 and 103.

1. Following the conclusion of the hearing, closing submissions were filed by both parties.

Application for a certificate under s.128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)

1. During the course of cross-examination, Ms Tahar was asked a series of questions about an extant spousal visa application made to the Department of Home Affairs.
2. The Court raised a concern about the nature of the responses being given, which were potentially self-incriminating. An adjournment was afforded so that Ms Tahar could have an opportunity to take advice on the matter and the parties could consider their respective positions in respect of the evidence given (the subject evidence).
3. Subsequently and prior to the recommencement of the hearing the following day, Ms Tahar elected to notify the authority responsible for considering her spousal visa application of errors in her application arising from and prompted by the questions which lead to the subject evidence.
4. Upon resumption, Ms Tahar's counsel applied on her behalf for a certificate to issue pursuant to s.128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (Evidence Act). That section provides in part that: where a witness objects to giving evidence on a particular matter on the basis that the evidence may tend to prove that the witness has committed an offence, the Court may - if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so - issue a certificate which prevents that evidence from being used against the witness.
5. Mr Galdan's counsel opposed on that basis that the s.128 power cannot be exercised retrospectively nor where the witness was not directly compelled to answer a question which was potentially incriminating, but rather voluntarily provided the information as an explanation to an ancillary question. As much was considered by Justice Hammerschlag in Shanahan v Jatese Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1097 where His Honour ultimately found that s.128 cannot be applied to evidence after the evidence has already been given. In doing so, His Honour reasoned that s.128 of the Evidence Act is written in the present tense and therefore applies only if a witness makes an objection to giving evidence in the first place, not to objecting to evidence that has already been given. Section 128(6) does contemplate a situation where a certificate may be issued after the evidence has been given. However, as His Honour clarified at [43], it applies only where an objection has been made and subsequently overruled.
6. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that there was an objection to the giving of the retrospective evidence by (or on behalf of) the witness nor was there any subsequent compulsion to give that evidence as to invoke the power to order a certificate pursuant to s.128 of the Evidence Act. A certificate would not in any event assist Ms Tahar in respect of the assessment of her spousal visa application or any matter other than a proceeding relating to an offence arising from the consequence of having given other evidence in completing the form submitted to the relevant department that was false.
7. For completeness, as cross-examination of the witness continued, a further application for a s.128 certificate was appropriately made on a pre-emptive basis and was granted. Orders confirming that ruling will be made herein.

1. Relatedly, Mr Galdan sought the exclusion of certain evidence of Ms Tahar which contradicted that given to the immigration department. Mr Galdan asked the Court to take a cautious approach as to whether sufficiently adequate corrections had been made and sought the exclusion of her inconsistent evidence: citing Lord Mansfield in Holman v Johnson [1775] EngR 58; (1775) 1 Cowp 341 and Justice McHugh in Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538.
2. Having now informed the Court that she has taken advice and appropriately corrected the matter with the relevant immigration department, I would not exclude the contrary evidence as to find that Ms Tahar's declaration of no prior relationships before her current partner (who shall be referred to as "Mr X"), reflected her true position about her relationship with Mr Galdan.
3. The implications in respect of the assessment of Ms Tahar's credibility are considered below.

1. The following summary of the evidence before the Court was not contentious except where indicated and any recitations of uncontentious facts constitute findings I have made.
2. As an initial observation, both parties were prone to overstating their subjective and retrospective recollections. Ms Tahar's credibility was particularly challenged during the course of the hearing by the aforementioned production of immigration records which she came to admit were falsely completed. This demonstrated a disregard for the law and a propensity to tell an authority whatever is required to gain the desired outcome. For his part, Mr Galdan's narrative was consistently directed at embarrassing Ms Tahar and protecting his marriage which had since reunited. Wherever possible I have made findings about disputed matters consistent with contemporaneous documentary records.

1. At the time of these reasons, Ms Tahar is 29 years of age and Mr Galdan is 48 years of age.
2. In October 2017, Ms Tahar started working for Mr Galdan's business (C Business) as an administrative assistant and it was here that the pair first met.
3. Ms Tahar worked at C Business until around December 2018 or January 2019.
4. For a period of about 3 months in 2019, Ms Tahar worked at D Company. During this time Ms Tahar endeavoured to refer work to Mr Galdan and the pair spoke regularly on the phone - approximately once each week, and this continued in 2020 when Ms Tahar started working full-time for E Company. It is uncontroversial that such attempted referrals did not convert into business that Mr Galdan in fact performed.
5. Ms Tahar's evidence was that, from January 2020, the pair commenced a relationship.
6. In or about March 2020, Ms Tahar and Mr Galdan met at a venue to discuss employment of her brother which employment did not eventuate until sometime later. According to Mr Galdan, he did not hear from Ms Tahar again until May 2020 when she reached out to ask him to help her with a car loan (detailed further below).
7. Mr Galdan's evidence was that they developed a friendship until, in February 2021, the pair commenced a sexual relationship. He said that the sexual component ended in May 2023 when they had sex for the final time, at a Suburb F hotel.
8. In September 2023, any relationship between them ceased. Ms Tahar said it came to an end following an incident of domestic violence perpetrated by him against her. Mr Galdan said it were on account of his reconciliation with his former wife.
9. Since then, the parties have instituted various legal proceedings against each other including:

(a) In respect of domestic violence, involving a report by Ms Tahar to the police in late 2023 which resulted in interim and final intervention orders issued respectively in late 2023 and early 2024. Subsequently, there was a further application by Ms Tahar for extended application of that final order and an application by Mr Galdan for variation of that final order - the final outcome of which further applications remained pending a contested hearing at the time of hearing of this matter.

(b) Following a demand to vacate made by solicitor letter dated 18 October 2023, commencement of proceedings by Mr Galdan before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking that Ms Tahar vacate a property at Suburb G. That proceeding was ultimately dismissed in June 2024.

(c) These proceedings seeking orders for adjustment of property, commenced by Ms Tahar on 5 August 2024. On 18 September 2024, Mr Galdan filed a response and, amongst other things, denied the existence of any de facto relationship.

1. The evidence of family, friends and presentation to the world as a couple was limited to that of the parties to the proceedings and Ms Tahar's general practitioner, who gave evidence on the limited subject of attendance at medical appointments.
2. Ms Tahar's evidence about joint purchase of properties was strongly disputed (detailed further below).
3. It was accepted that there were gifts bestowed on Ms Tahar by Mr Galdan, although the alleged gift of Motor Vehicle 1 was disputed (detailed further below).
4. There were examples of some but, in all, a scarcity of evidence to support regular communications as would be exchanged by a loving and committed couple. There were photos of the pair together.
5. There was mutual evidence that the pair had, at times, gone for drives or day trips together. For example, in April or May 2021 a day trip to Town H and, in May 2021, for a drive to Venue J in Town K. Ms Tahar sought to emphasise this as a feature of their loving relationship, Mr Galdan sought to say these trips were for the purpose of engaging in casual sex in the car.
6. Ms Tahar claimed to have knowledge of Mr Galdan's family law proceedings involving his former wife and to have had discussions with him about his business ventures, which evidence was not understood to be seriously disputed.
7. Ms Tahar lived with her brother during 2020 and until around October 2021 and Mr Galdan was known to him. Ms Tahar's brother worked for Mr Galdan from April 2022 until late 2023. Mr Galdan's evidence was that her brother was unaware the pair had been having sex.
8. It appeared uncontroversial that Mr Galdan did not want Ms Tahar to meet his then young daughter. Ms Tahar was otherwise known to Mr Galdan's immediate and extended family, namely his mother, grandmother and cousins whom she met when they were holidaying in Australia between July 2022 and February 2023. Mr Galdan said that Ms Tahar played the role of tour guide for them during that trip, as Ms Tahar had good local knowledge and could particularly guide the female relatives. Ms Tahar produced photographs which she said showed celebration of birthdays together and posing with his mother on a boat during said holiday which demonstrated more than a tour guide role. Mr Galdan accepted that he had cut birthday cake with Ms Tahar, her brother and her mother on his birthday.
9. Mr Galdan referred to Ms Tahar as "..." in order to conceal her identity. Ms Tahar said on affidavit that this was just in the presence of his daughter, whom he did not want to know that they were in a relationship, whereas Mr Galdan said this was in the presence of all of his family and referred to WhatsApp messages which showed his family referring to her as "..." in a group WhatsApp exchange of his family members about their Australian holiday.
10. Ms Tahar produced part of a WhatsApp message exchange of 3 January 2023 and initially gave written evidence that photographs of jewellery represented that Mr Galdan had asked her to choose a wedding ring and also a marriage necklace known as mangalsutra per Indian traditions. He denied this and said the exchange was about a customs purchase of jewellery for her mother. In cross-examination, Ms Tahar was asked to accept that this was not a proposal of marriage at all to which she responded that she was just asked to choose which one she liked. When the cross-examiner posed this might have been an expression of love or care for her, Ms Tahar responded "But he didn't love me".
11. Ms Tahar also produced a WhatsApp message of 5 April 2023 with a post from the Melbourne Private Marriage Registry - Victoria and a message from Mr Galdan "You wanna go there with me" to which she responded "I wish !!! One dayyy !!". His evidence before the Court was that this was a tease and in the context of his role as a sugar daddy. At hearing and in response to questions of the Court, Ms Tahar gave further context to her evidence - in terms that her response conveyed that it was her wish to get married one day, he could never make up his mind and ultimately that she knew it was not a commitment he was making to her. She elaborated to say that Mr Galdan had always said that he wanted to marry her but every now and then would have child custody problems and could never make a decision of living with Ms Tahar or his former wife. Ms Tahar told the Court that all she had wanted was stability, but when he was with her he wanted his daughter and when he was with his daughter he wanted her. She said she just wanted him to make a clear decision. When questioned about whether it was hurtful to receive this message of 5 April 2023 given that context, Ms Tahar told the Court for the first time in oral evidence that Mr Galdan had even raised it with her parents. She went on to say that there had been a dinner with her parents, so that Mr Galdan could give them an assurance (about marriage). Further that, over the dinner, there had been discussion about Mr Galdan's intentions to which her father said words to the effect that he considered Mr Galdan to have a very messy past and still was (messy). Ms Tahar also told the Court that, just 2 days after the 5 April 2023 message, she had a legal dispute with the former wife about an allegedly defamatory social media post and Mr Galdan then flip(ped) again and went back to the former wife.
12. Ms Tahar also brought evidence of Mr Galdan's attendance at some 11 medical appointments with Ms Tahar over the course of 2023; on 3 January, 7 and 16 February, 13 March, 23 May, 18, 20 and 25 July, 15 and 24 August and 7 September 2023. Mr Galdan acknowledged that he had attended medical appointments purporting to be Ms Tahar's husband but said that he only attended 4 to 5 of those medical appointments. The general practitioner gave evidence of her recollection that Mr Galdan was present at every appointment but accepted she had no notation or record of this she simply remembered. Mr Galdan sought to explain that he had posed as her husband and attended the medical appointments only because he cared for her as a friend and also for cultural reasons and to protect her dignity. Ms Tahar was critical of his justification submitting that his active involvement and repeated attendance was inconsistent with his "sugar daddy" narrative.

1. Everyone accepted that there was a sexual relationship between Ms Tahar and Mr Galdan but specific dates of sexual activity, level of intensity and degree of meaningfulness were strongly disputed.
2. For her part, Ms Tahar said that the parties commenced a sexual relationship sometime in January 2020 which ended in September 2023. According to Mr Galdan, it was some time after his separation from his former wife (June 2020) and not until February 2021 that he and Ms Tahar began a sexual relationship - the sexual component of which was irregular for 10 months, became more irregular in exchange for economic benefits and ended when they had sex for a final time, in a Suburb F hotel, in May 2023.
3. Other details of the sexual relationship between Ms Tahar and Mr Galdan were strongly disputed - as was the relevance of this evidence to the proceedings.
4. For his part, Mr Galdan insisted that theirs was a casual sexual relationship and that the casual nature of it was relevant to the Court's assessment of all of the circumstances of the relationship and Ms Tahar's credit. He gave evidence on affidavit, and orally to the Court, that they would meet up for sex mostly in motor vehicles and public places (although he did admit that they, on one occasion, had sex indoors on his bed and another in a Suburb F hotel). He specified the alleged dates of these sexual encounters which are not necessary to repeat here. Further, Mr Galdan said that Ms Tahar had various other sexual partners during the term of their sexual encounters (and could name them) and had himself engaged in sex with prostitutes and 4 or 5 other women (and could, but would, not name them). In her submissions, Ms Tahar was highly critical of this evidence as fabricated to support his narrative, mislead the Court, shame Ms Tahar and protect his position with his spouse - asking the Court to find that this evidence strained credibility on account of the specificity and selective nature of Mr Galdan's recall some years after the events, where there are no contemporaneous records and in any event is of no probative value in respect of the question of whether they shared a mutual life.
5. For her part, Ms Tahar disagreed with some of the specifics of the alleged instances of casual sex with Mr Galdan in public places and otherwise told the Court that there were other instances of sex indoors and consistent with a genuine domestic relationship. Ms Tahar gave evidence of having fallen pregnant to Mr Galdan on 3 occasions and to have subsequently aborted those pregnancies. Mr Galdan denied those pregnancies as belonging to him, tabling a sperm count report from September 2012 as proof of abnormally low sperm count and citing difficulties conceiving with his former wife.

1. Ms Tahar denied that she was in other relationships whilst also in a relationship with Mr Galdan, as Mr Galdan claimed in his evidence.
2. Ms Tahar subsequently partnered with another man earlier defined as Mr X. On account of their spousal relationship, in 2024, she sponsored Mr X in an application for a visa permitting his residency in Australia. When asked about documents subpoenaed from the Department of Home Affairs, Ms Tahar's evidence was that she recorded 15 November 2023 as the date they had first started talking as distinct from the date their relationship commenced. She also admitted that she had falsely declared to have not been in any previous marriage, de facto relationship or relationship with persons other than Mr X. Ms Tahar accepted this lie was not because of a difficulty with her English but, rather, her evidence was that it was her migration agent who had advised not to include Mr Galdan on the application as Ms Tahar was no longer in a relationship with him. Ms Tahar also gave evidence that none of the addresses that she declared as having resided at included any of the addresses she claimed in evidence in these proceedings to have lived at with Mr Galdan, because they were not on any of the documents or bank statements. A similar omission was conceded by Ms Tahar in respect of an earlier application for a skilled work visa in May 2022 which included a statement that she had not been married or in a defacto relationship. As above, during the course of the hearing, Ms Tahar (with assistance of her representatives) decided to disclose the false declaration(s) to the immigration department in circumstances where the visa application remained subject of assessment.
3. As detailed above Mr Galdan told the Court that, during the course of his relationship with Ms Tahar, he also saw multiple other women including prostitutes.
4. There was also evidence of Mr Galdan's prior marriage which relationship, at the time of hearing, had reignited following a period of separation and divorce. Specifically, in 2007, Mr Galdan was married to a woman who shall be referred to as "Ms Y" and they have a child together. Mr Galdan's evidence was that they briefly separated in 2018 and "finally" separated in June 2020 when he vacated the family home. He commenced proceedings in this Court in December 2020 as a result of that matrimonial separation. In April 2021, they finalised their parenting and property proceedings by consent and their divorce became final in mid-2022. In September 2023 and ongoing as at the time of hearing, Mr Galdan had reunited with Ms Y - which was not disputed (in circumstances where the affidavit of Ms Y was withdrawn and she was not called to give evidence in the case). Mr Galdan acknowledged that the reunification with his former wife in September 2023 brought an end to his "casual" relationship with Ms Tahar.

Living arrangements, use, acquisition and ownership of property

1. Ms Tahar gave evidence that they lived together intermittently, at 5 different properties. Her evidence was that their living arrangements were structured to accommodate Mr Galdan's overnight time with his daughter (3 nights per week) at which times Ms Tahar would reside away from the home. She said that, in those times, she would reside at one of the other properties for which Mr Galdan was recorded as sole proprietor. She also gave evidence of providing domestic duties such as cooking and cleaning and other household duties.
2. Mr Galdan denied that the pair ever lived together or ever stayed overnight together. He said she rented from him and consistent with a "sugar daddy" arrangement he subsidised this at times, and claimed to have paid all mortgages on properties that he owned, in full, and to have funded all deposits on purchase of properties. He also denied any domestic support such as cleaning, cooking or performance of household duties by Ms Tahar for him.
3. For her part, Ms Tahar contended that nothing about the evidence supported his rental narrative, there being no: evidence of lease agreements, regular payments, rental bonds, messages/emails discussing rent, tenancy terms, ledgers or records.
4. The specific evidence of their various living arrangements and purchase of properties in which they resided was as follows.
5. During 2020 until about October 2021, Ms Tahar lived with her brother, a Mr L at M Street, Suburb N.
6. From 9 June 2020, Mr Galdan stayed with his friend in Suburb O and also stayed at a serviced apartment in Suburb P for several nights.
7. From October 2020, Mr Galdan rented an apartment at 2 M Street, Suburb N with his cousin. It is uncontroversial that this property was in close proximity to Ms Tahar's then residence with her brother. Mr Galdan denied Ms Tahar's claims that she had been responsible for organising the rental and further said that he had contacted the agent, viewed the property, signed the lease and paid the bond. It is here, at M Street, that Ms Tahar said they first commenced to live together which he denied. Mr Galdan accepted that Ms Tahar had visited but said this was on 2 occasions only - referring also to COVID-lockdowns/restrictions and care of his daughter some 3 to 4 nights per week at that time.
8. In November 2020, Mr Galdan relocated to and rented another property at Q Street, Suburb N with his cousin and his dog. He said the move was to accommodate his dog and set up a room for his daughter - and again maintained that he had located and leased the property himself, without assistance of Ms Tahar. Ms Tahar disputed this.
9. In April or May 2021, a property at R Street, Suburb S was purchased in Mr Galdan's sole name. His evidence was that he intended to reside there but was subsequently informed by the body corporate that his dog was unable to be kept in that apartment. According to Mr Galdan he later offered to Ms Tahar that she could rent it from him as her lease was soon to end.
10. In early June 2021, a property at T Street, Suburb G was purchased in Mr Galdan's sole name. She said that she paid $8,500 toward the deposit for the purchase of this property and produced a receipt which showed 2 transactions (for $7,500.00 and $1,000.00 respectively) paid to U Company. He said settlement was in November 2021 and he moved there when the Q Street lease concluded.
11. In August 2021, Ms Tahar moved into the R Street property and at least initially she made payments to Mr Galdan's mortgage or bank account. Her evidence was that these payments were toward the mortgage by way of joint ownership, whereas he said the payments were mostly consistent with an oral agreement with Mr Galdan that she pay $1,608.00 in rent per month. In cross-examination, he accepted that her payments were irregular at best.
12. In March 2022, a property at V Street, Suburb W was purchased in the sole name of Mr Galdan. He said settlement was in July 2022 and he moved there following. His mother, grandmother and extended family stayed with him in this property between July 2022 and February 2023 while visiting from India.
13. From September 2022, the oral agreement as to her tenancy at R Street changed in that Mr Galdan would transfer $1,608.00 to Ms Tahar and she would transfer it back to him. He described this as his agreement to "pay" her rent via a structure designed to ensure she could show a continuous rental history and not reveal to her brother or family that she was getting free rent in exchange for sex with Mr Galdan. His transfers were accompanied by a note of "..." meaning "kiss"; her return transfers were described as "[R Street] rent". When pressed about those descriptions in cross-examination, Mr Galdan said:

COUNSEL: So if the whole point of this loop of transactions between your account was to make it look like a real lease, why were you labelling your transfers to a [...] or [...], meaning "kiss" [...]? Why would you do that if you were trying to make it look like a lease?

MR GALDAN: With due respect, I don't want to disrespect anyone. On that day when I transferred the money as a [...], she said me - she told me, "You know how much it's cost me to kiss me? This much money is for kiss." I said, "Okay. That's fine. I transfer the money and put the reference that's for a kiss."

1. The R Street rental arrangement, as it were according to Mr Galdan, ultimately increased in December 2022, to $2,190.00 per month, but the "subsidy arrangement" he described continued unchanged. In May 2023, Ms Tahar said that she had paid rates on this property direct to X City Council in the amount of $1,337.80. For his part, Mr Galdan said this was a form of repayment to him inclusive of rental payments she had missed.
2. On or around May 2023, a property at Y Street, Suburb G was purchased in the sole name of Mr Galdan. The initial deposit on the purchase was made by Ms Tahar, in the amount of $23,500.00. She said that they purchased the property together and annexed to her affidavit an undated screenshot of a text message (with no identifying number) purporting to be from the sales agent which congratulated Mr Galdan and his partner on their purchase. For his part, Mr Galdan claimed that he had transferred $13,500 of the payment to her and the balance was repayment of money owed to him but paid direct to the agent for efficiency. His evidence was that his former wife, Ms Y, had learned of Ms Tahar's tenancy at R Street and insisted she be required to vacate which Ms Tahar had refused to do. Mr Galdan said, therefore, he proposed that Ms Tahar relocate to the newly purchased Suburb G property. Ms Tahar moved into this property in May 2023 and initially paid rent to the earlier owners. Following settlement, he said that she paid amounts described as follows to him:

(a) $2,423.35 on 21 September 2023 described as "Repayment Sep";

(b) $776.75 on 20 October 2023 described as "Rent";

(c) $1,690.00 on 20 November 2023 described as "Mortgage Repayment"; and

(d) $1,692.20 on 21 December 2023 described as "Rent",

there being no further payments by Ms Tahar after that date.

1. As above, in October 2023, Mr Galdan's solicitor wrote a letter demanding her to vacate and, in February or March 2024, Ms Tahar vacated the Suburb G property. Before Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal, in mid-2024, the Tribunal dismissed an application by Mr Galdan that she vacate the property by reason of lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal record noted an absence of evidence of a residential tenancy agreement and that the evidence indicated a property ownership dispute arising from a previous relationship. According to Mr Galdan, third party tenants were placed in that property from June 2024.

1. The purchase of Motor Vehicle 2 in May 2020 was in the name of Ms Tahar. According to Mr Galdan, a money transfer of $5,000.00 (across 2 transactions, on 29 May 2020 and 11 June 2020) were by way of loan to support her in that purchase. The vehicle was transferred to Mr Galdan's business on 22 December 2022 with a residual value of $25,00.00 which Mr Galdan said was in repayment of debt owed.
2. Ms Tahar gave evidence that Mr Galdan gifted her his Motor Vehicle 1 in 2022, when he could no longer drive it (arising from driving related offences). In cross-examination, she acknowledged that she had not produced any documentary or contemporaneous records about this alleged "gift". She further accepted that Motor Vehicle 1 was ultimately traded to purchase Motor Vehicle 3, which purchase was made in his business name.

1. In November 2023, a Guardian Vault locker that had been in the joint names of the parties was closed. Ms Tahar's evidence was that its contents included all of her gold ornaments and bars and that Mr Galdan had sold these in February or March 2023 for cash - which proceeds were utilised to pay the mortgage of the V Street property and another property (Z Street, Suburb AA) in the names of Mr Galdan and Ms Y. In cross-examination, she clarified that the contents were joint contributions and she could not produce evidence of its worth or original purchases.

1. Ms Tahar accepted in cross-examination that she had not disclosed (in her financial statement) the existence of 2 bank accounts (a BB Bank account, which she said had nothing in it, and a bank account in India) and falsely disclosed a monthly payment of a car loan. Ms Tahar was not understood to accuse Mr Galdan of any particular non-disclosures.
2. By the conclusion of the hearing, Ms Tahar sought to rely on the following examples of "financial intermingling" as derived from her filed affidavit evidence (some of which is detailed above):

(a) $23,500.00 deposit which she paid for the property at Y Street, Suburb G;

(b) $8,500.00 which she paid toward the deposit for the property at T Street, Suburb G;

(c) Her payments in respect of the properties at Y Street, Suburb G and R Street, Suburb S, which she deposed were contributions to those respective mortgages;

(d) Her payment of rates to X City Council;

(e) Her purchase of all furniture for properties at V Street, Suburb W and T Street, Suburb G;

(f) Transfer of Motor Vehicle 2 purchased by Ms Tahar to Mr Galdan's business, where there was a $25,000.00 residual owing;

(g) Gift of Mr Galdan's Motor Vehicle 1 in 2022;

(h) Joint storage of gold and jewellery at Guardian Vaults, in joint names of Ms Tahar and Mr Galdan; and

(i) The money she paid toward Mr Galdan's legal fees in respect of criminal and family law proceedings.

1. Ms Tahar annexed various bank statements and asked the Court to find that the scale and pattern of money transfers between the parties underscored a finding of substantial financial intermingling.
2. For his part, Mr Galdan did not dispute the existence of many of the financial transactions but, rather, in his evidence sought to dispute their character and the explanations for them asking the Court to find that he provided financial benefits in exchange for sex and also gave loans to her for which he required reimbursement at times. For example, he transferred $5,000.00 to Ms Tahar (across 2 transactions, on 29 May 2020 and 11 June 2020) which he claimed was to help her with the purchase of Motor Vehicle 2 that he ultimately reclaimed by the transfer back to his business. Mr Galdan annexed to his affidavit evidence a schedule which he described as a "tally" of Ms Tahar's claimed financial contributions as contained in the bank statements and summaries annexed to her affidavit evidence as well as her additionally asserted contributions. Mr Galdan's evidence was that her contributions, when offset by funds he had advanced to her, resulted in a net overall benefit to Ms Tahar of $628.00. That calculation was not understood to be seriously disputed.

1. Section 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (Act) confers jurisdiction on the Court to order alteration of interests in property following the breakdown of a de facto relationship. The notations to that provision make clear that the Court must first be satisfied of the existence of one of the following criteria at s.90SB:

(a) that the period, or the total of the periods, of the de facto relationship is at least 2 years; or

(b) that there is a child of the de facto relationship; or

(c) that:

(i) the party to the de facto relationship who applies for the

order or declaration made substantial contributions of a

kind mentioned in paragraph 90SM(4)(a), (b) or (c); and

(ii) a failure to make the order or declaration would result in

serious injustice to the applicant; or

(d) that the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory.

1. Such application under s.90SM must be made, relevantly, within 2 years after the end of the de facto relationship: s.44(5) of the Act.
2. When determining whether a de facto relationship exists, the Court is guided by the definition at s.4AA of the Act:

Meaning of de facto relationship

(1) A person is in a de facto relationship with another person if:

(a) the persons are not legally married to each other; and

(b) the persons are not related by family (see subsection (6)); and

(c) having regard to all the circumstances of their relationship, they have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.

Paragraph (c) has effect subject to subsection (5).

Working out if persons have a relationship as a couple

(2) Those circumstances may include any or all of the following:

(a) the duration of the relationship;

(b) the nature and extent of their common residence;

(c) whether a sexual relationship exists;

(d) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between them;

(e) the ownership, use and acquisition of their property;

(f) the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;

(g) whether the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory as a prescribed kind of relationship;

(h) the care and support of children;

(i) the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.

(3) No particular finding in relation to any circumstance is to be regarded as necessary in deciding whether the persons have a de facto relationship.

(4) A court determining whether a de facto relationship exists is entitled to have regard to such matters, and to attach such weight to any matter, as may seem appropriate to the court in the circumstances of the case.

(5) For the purposes of this Act:

(a) a de facto relationship can exist between 2 persons of different sexes and between 2 persons of the same sex; and

(b) a de facto relationship can exist even if one of the persons is legally married to someone else or in another de facto relationship.

When 2 persons are related by family

(6) For the purposes of subsection (1), 2 persons are related by family if:

(a) one is the child (including an adopted child) of the other; or

(b) one is another descendant of the other (even if the relationship between them is traced through an adoptive parent); or

(c) they have a parent in common (who may be an adoptive parent of either or both of them).

For this purpose, disregard whether an adoption is declared void or has ceased to have effect.

1. In an application of this kind the Court is conferred with the power to, for the purposes of the primary proceedings, make a declaration that a de facto relationship existed or never existed between the parties including as to the period of the relationship and when it ended: s.90RD.
2. Her Honour Judge Boymal usefully summarised the key principles from the authorities in Cizek & Mihov [2024] FedCFamC2F 584 at [22]- [24] as follows:

[22] No particular finding in relation to any circumstance is to be regarded as necessary in deciding whether the parties were in a de facto relationship.[1] None of the matters referred to in section 4AA(2) has precedence over any other, nor must all necessarily be found before a finding of a de facto relationship is made.[2] The Court is entitled to have regard to such matters, and attach such weight to any matter, as may seem appropriate in the circumstances.[3]

[23] Regard must be had to all of the circumstances of the relationship, whether or not they are specified by subsection 4AA(2).[4] The Court is required to look at the "composite picture" produced by the synthesis of the evidence and statutory considerations prescribed in section 4AA.[5]

[24] In Sinclair & Whittaker [2013] FamCAFC 129 the Full Court of the Family Court at [55] cited with approval Fitzgerald J's statement in Lynam v Director-General of Social Security [1983] FCA 274; (1983) 52 ALR 128 at 131:

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 of the opposite sex meets the statutory test.

1. There is no question in the present case that the parties were not legally married or related to each other by family as defined by the statute. The issue is whether, having regard to all the circumstances of their relationship, they had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.
2. In this context, "living together" is construed to mean sharing a life as a couple: Fairbairn v Radecki [2022] HCA 18 (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ) at [39].
3. I turn then to consider the non-exhaustive list of circumstances to which the Court is entitled to have regard, and determine the appropriate weight to be attributed, in working out whether a couple were in a de facto relationship.

1. The commencement date of the relationship for which either party contended is not supported by corroborative or contemporaneous documents.
2. Without more, I would not accept Ms Tahar's account alone, particularly where she has (in the immigration context) demonstrated a preparedness to describe the commencement of a relationship (that with Mr X) from an earlier date than was the case. Similarly, Mr Galdan's account alone particularly as to this matter suffers from his propensity to protect his then and now rekindled relationship with Ms Y.
3. At least the first alleged "loan" from Mr Galdan to Ms Tahar was paid in 2 instalments, on 29 May 2020 and 11 June 2020. Such payment is consistent with his "sugar daddy" narrative and accords with the time when, on his own account, he finally separated from Ms Y and left the family home.
4. In respect of the date of separation, again the subjective accounts of the parties are not reliable. Mr Galdan had just reunited with Ms Y as of September 2023. However, the most contemporaneous record records Ms Tahar's account given as of December 2023 to the Police, that the relationship ended in September 2023.
5. Given the ultimate conclusion reached it matters not but, for completeness, on the evidence before the Court I would find that at least an intimate relationship had commenced by the time of the first money transfer on 29 May 2020 and that any intimate or other involvement between the parties had ceased from 13 September 2023.

1. The balance of the evidence, which is starkly absent corroborative records, does not support a finding that the parties lived together at any time.
2. Ms Tahar is established to have lived in Mr Galdan's properties from at least August 2021 until February or March 2024 but the inquiry does not end there.
3. Even on her best case, they maintained separate residences throughout. Uncontroversially, they did so for reasons which included that they did not share domestic care arrangements for his child and he did not want her to meet his child in this context.
4. Ms Tahar made some payments on the face of the records described as rent which transactions are consistent with Mr Galdan's evidence of their agreed tenancy arrangements, even if he did not (for the most part) seek to enforce those agreements. On an assessment of all of the evidence, it is most plausible that Mr Galdan allowed Ms Tahar to stay in his properties and did not enforce tenancy agreements in exchange for their sexual encounters.
5. Whilst a finding of separate living arrangements, as I have found here, is not of itself conclusive it is an important feature in the context of the present case.

1. The existence of a sexual relationship, whilst also not determinative, is a relevant factor under s.4AA(2) of the Act and is established in the present case.
2. Even if Mr Galdan's evidence of their sexual relationship were taken at its highest, I accept Ms Tahar's submission that the details of the frequency, level and extent of their intimacy is not materially helpful in all of the circumstances of this case to determining the present question of whether there was a genuine de facto relationship.

Degree of financial dependence or interdependence & financial support

1. The evidence incontrovertibly established the exchange of money between Ms Tahar and Mr Galdan during the period in which I have found there to have been some kind of intimate relationship between them. However, the evidence about the reason for such exchanges of money was confused and confusing.
2. On balance, I consider the evidence reasonably supports a finding of financial benefits bestowed on Ms Tahar but falls short of a relationship of financial dependence. Further, I would not be persuaded on the evidence that Ms Tahar made contributions beyond the occasional tenancy or board payment in exchange for lodging. That is particularly the case in circumstances where the bank statements reveal Mr Galdan having made transfers to compensate for any payments she made (eg. deposits on property purchases) over time.

1. As reasoned above, Ms Tahar occupied his properties at times and made payments which I have found constituted rent in exchange for lodging.
2. There is no evidence of Ms Tahar's inclusion on title to any of the property purchased during the term of their association. To the contrary, all property was purchased in Mr Galdan's sole name and the evidence established he was solely responsible for the mortgages and other related liabilities.
3. There was evidence she owned a car which was transferred to his business, he owned a car he allowed her to use for a time.
4. When the evidence is assessed as a whole, I consider her use of his property including the cars to be entirely consistent with his "sugar daddy" narrative.

Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life, reputation & public aspects

1. There is limited to no evidence of having shared a loving, committed relationship as a couple in front of both their families as Ms Tahar would have the Court accept.
2. I consider it highly unusual that the alleged dinner with Ms Tahar's parents wherein Mr Galdan provided assurance of marriage was not mentioned in written evidence and only arose during oral testimony. In any event, and acknowledging that Mr Galdan was afforded little ability to respond to the oral evidence about a dinner with her parents, even if it were true both were at best briefly known to the other's family.
3. I am prepared to accept that at least Mr Galdan simultaneously saw other people and Ms Tahar was aware.
4. Photos taken with his family on their trip to Australia are not persuasive in the context of their circumstances.
5. There is no persuasive evidence that either of them put themselves forward to the world as a couple. The idea of marriage was fanciful. By Ms Tahar's evidence that she purported to be demonstration of a proposal of marriage, Ms Tahar ultimately accepted that it was not that - it was not even an expression of love - and her response to his overture was, sadly, reflective of her desire for his commitment which Mr Galdan never gave.
6. The evidence of attendance at medical appointments does not greatly assist or advance matters.
7. The absence of evidence of any family or friends is stark and weighs against a finding of a mutual commitment to a shared life in the present case.
8. Importantly, the evidence of Ms Tahar was most frank when she effectively conceded that she knew Mr Galdan had never committed to her, and was constantly indecisive.

1. In weighing all of the evidence before the Court, I conclude there was no existence of a de facto relationship between Ms Tahar and Mr Galdan. A declaration will be made in those terms.
2. The matter of costs will be reserved.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and nine (109) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Mansini.

[1] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AA(3).

[2] Clarence & Crisp [2016] FamCAFC 157 at [33].

[3] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AA(4).

[4] Sinclair & Whittaker (2013) FamCAFC 129 at [51].

[5] Colburn & Cleese [2022] FedCFamC1A 147; (2022) FLC 94-105 at [79].