Piras v Egan

Piras v Egan - [2006] NSWSC 328 - NSWSC 2005 case summary — Zoe

[54]

48 This raises the question of how a relationship of this nature does terminate. There have been a number of references in the cases to the problem which started to surface in Australia in cases under matrimonial legislation which provided for parties living separately and apart as a ground for divorce. An earlier case which is of use on the general principles is Main v Main (1949) 78 CLR 636. At page 642 in the joint decision of the majority the following was said:- "Although usually the existence of the conjugal or matrimonial relationship or consortium vitae means that the spouses share a common home and live in the closest association, it is not inconsistent with absences one from another, even for very long periods of time. It rests rather on a real mutual recognition by husband and wife that the marital relationship continues to subsist and a definite intention to resume the closer association of a common life as soon as the occasion or exigency has passed which has led to an interruption regarded by both as temporary. "In deciding whether there was at any specified date an existing matrimonial relationship, it is, I think, right to say that such a relationship does not end so long as both the spouses bona fide recognize it as subsisting, and in particular it does not end by reason of a separation brought about by the pressure of external circumstances such as absence on professional or business pursuits, or in search of health, or, it may be, even of pleasure. Marital intercourse, the dwelling under the same roof, society and protection, support, recognition in public and in private, correspondence during separation, making up as a whole the consortium vitae , which the old writers distinguish from the divortium a mensa et thoro , may be regarded separately as different elements, the presence or absence of which go to show more or less conclusively that the matrimonial relationship does or does not exist. The weight of each of these elements varies with the health, position in life, and all the other circumstances of the parties." (per Cussen J., Tulk v Tulk , at p65)". [Footnote omitted]

[131]

117 In Mankulin v Drew (unreported, NSWSC 12 August 1993) Young J dealt with the matter at some length. He said: "In Benny v Jones supra, I said that the question of what is a household in this legislation was awkward. I then reviewed a series of cases in Canada and North America dealing with exceptions to insurance policies whereby damage to member; of the insured's household are not covered. As I mentioned in Benny v Jones the cases have taken the view that one cannot have a household of one, a household involves the existence of a householder and that a household consists of the members who live in the domestic establishment including servants and attendants. The word is wider than family. In Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co v Bell (1957) 8 DLR (2d) 577, 580, Rand J in the Supreme Court of Canada noted the difference between people who were in the household and those who were of a household. He said "The circle of those 'in' is larger than those 'of', a good example of which is furnished by the case of Home Insurance Co v Pettit 143 So 839 (1932). There the exception was of theft by a person 'in' the household of the insured and an uncle, temporarily a guest of the insured's father was held to be of that description." See also Calverley v Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance Co (1959) 18 DLR (2d) 598, 606, where a live in farmhand was held to be a person in the household but not of the household. In that case Schroeder JA in the Ontario Court of Appeal said that a person "'in the household' can more easily disengage himself from that relationship or association than a person who falls within the more intimate category ...". It is to be noted that in the instant statute the words are "of the household".In Kingsland v McIndoe [1989] VR 273, Gobbo J had to look at the words "member of the household" under the Victorian Crimes (Family Violence) Act. His Honour considered under that Act persons whose sole relationship was that of sharing a house did not qualify as members of a household. He did, however, thoroughly discuss the English, Australian and Canadian authorities on the meaning of the word "household".

[134]

Windeyer J said that there was no doubt at all that the principal household of the deceased was with his wife, but then said: "The question is whether or not he was also a member of the household of [Nancy] ... I accept that it may be possible in special circumstances to be a member of more than one household at the same time. Mr Green probably managed that; see Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343. But the ordinary meaning of being a member of a household requires the member to live in that household. A child living at home with the family is a member of both family and household but upon moving out to live elsewhere remains a member of the family but not of the household. Regular visiting, when this is not accompanied by regular overnight stay, is not sufficient. ... It follows that the plaintiff is not an eligible person and her claim should be dismissed with costs."Windeyer J's statement that it is possible to be a member of two households must, in my view, be completely correct. It is not at all uncommon in this day and age that a child of a broken marriage will stay with his or her father from Friday night to Monday morning because the mother works weekends, and will live with his or her mother from Monday through to Friday because the father works weekdays. The child may very well have clothes and toys and books at both the mother's home and the father's home. The child would clearly be in two households. Likewise the Mr Green to whom Mr Justice Windeyer referred who had a legal wife and two de facto wives whom he kept in ignorance of each other's existence and managed to spend roughly two days a week with each, may well have been involved in three households in all of which he may have been the householder. Accordingly, I accept that it is possible for Mr Ackerman to have been a member of the Markulin household ever though he may also have been a member of the Legge household or he was a member of a household involving his suite at the Airport Hilton Hotel. If, however, the American cases are correct that it needs more than one person to constitute a household, there was no household involved with the deceased's suite at the Airport Hilton Hotel. It is not necessary to go into that matter further.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (138 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (9)