Plaintiffs v Defendants

PROPERTY - De facto relationship - Resulting trust - Indefeasibility of title - No actual contributions to the purchase price of Braybrook and Kensington properties - Presumption of advancement.

PROPERTY - De facto relationship - Properties not held on trust for the other party - Promise not made - Position not altered in reliance upon any such promise - No resulting or "common intention" constructive trust.

For the First and Second Plaintiffs (First and Second Defendants by counterclaim)

For the First Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim)

In person until 3 December 2015 (Mr D Carlile of Counsel 22 July 2015, 6 and 31 August 2015)

1 The plaintiffs in this proceeding, Stephen and Jelvie Grech, are the registered proprietors (either singly, or jointly) of five properties in suburban Melbourne. On 23 October 2008, the defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim, Larissa Deak-Fabrikant, lodged caveats over each of the five properties claiming an interest in fee simple in the properties at 178 Queen Street, Altona ('Altona property'); 12 Heron Way, Point Cook (also known as Sanctuary Lakes) ('Sanctuary Lakes property'); 18 Speakmen Street, Kensington ('Speakmen Street property'); 17 Errol Street, Braybrook ('Errol Street property'); and 4/233 Ballarat Road, Braybrook ('Ballarat Road property'). The interest claimed in the caveat is as follows:

By virtue of the resulting implied or constructive trust in favour of the caveator arising from the contribution made by the caveator towards the acquisition, conservation and improvement of the said land.

2 Ms Deak-Fabrikant is the former de facto partner of Paul Grech, Stephen Grech's father. Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Paul Grech separated in September 2008 in acrimonious circumstances. Paul Grech was, until January 2008 and September 2008 respectively, the registered proprietor of two of the five properties referred to above, being the Altona property, and the Sanctuary Lakes property. The Altona property was transferred to Stephen Grech on 4 January 2008, and the Sanctuary Lakes property was transferred to Jelvie Grech on 30 September 2008. After Paul Grech left the Altona property on 28 September 2008, Ms Deak-Fabrikant continued to reside in the Altona property, and she remains there today.[1]

3 On 26 February 2009, Stephen and Jelvie Grech issued this proceeding, seeking, among other things, removal of the caveats over the five properties, and compensation pursuant to s 118 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic).

4 On 16 June 2009, Ms Deak-Fabrikant issued a counterclaim joining Paul Grech to the proceeding, seeking, among other things, certain declarations as to the interests claimed by her in respect of the five properties, and a claim under the Relationships Act 2008 (Vic) ('Relationships Act') for an adjustment of the property interests of Paul Grech in her favour.

5 For the reasons which follow, the proper disposition of the parties' claims in the proceeding is as follows:

(a) in relation to the claims made by Stephen and Jelvie Grech:

(i) the caveats over the Altona property, the Errol Street property, the Speakmen Street property and the Ballarat Road property be removed;

(ii) an order that Stephen Grech have possession of the Altona property, such order to be stayed for ninety days;

(iii) there be directions for the further hearing of the claims made by Stephen and Jelvie Grech for damages and/or compensation in the event they seek to press those claims; and

(b) in relation to the claims made by Ms Deak-Fabrikant:

(i) the transfer of the Sanctuary Lakes property from Paul Grech to Jelvie Grech be set aside pursuant to s 63(2) of the Relationships Act;

(ii) an order pursuant to s 45(1) of the Relationships Act that Paul Grech pay Ms Deak-Fabrikant the sum of $256,000 ('judgment sum') (being twenty per cent of the combined value of the Altona property and the Sanctuary Lakes property), to be secured by a charge over the Sanctuary Lakes property;

(iii) payment of the judgment sum be stayed until after the hearing and determination of the issue of the costs of the proceeding;

(iv) upon payment of the judgment sum to Ms Deak-Fabrikant, or by agreement between the parties, or further order, the caveat over the Sanctuary Lakes property be removed; and

(v) the claims made in Ms Deak-Fabrikant's amended counterclaim be otherwise dismissed.

6 Further, I will reserve the question of the parties' costs of the proceeding for determination on a further date, and give directions for the filing and service of submissions and affidavits in that regard.

7 Ms Deak-Fabrikant claims she met Paul Grech in April or May of 1991 in the Registry Office of the Family Court. She was there attending to matters concerning her divorce from her former husband. Paul Grech was enquiring as to how to make an application for custody of his son Stephen, who was then thirteen years old. They became friends, and shortly after romantically involved. Paul Grech visited her at her apartment in Richmond, where she lived with her son Alex and his partner Karen. She was working as a registered nurse at that time.

8 Ms Deak-Fabrikant contends that after a few weeks or months of dating, Paul Grech asked her to come and live with him and Stephen as a family at the Altona property, with a view to marrying once his divorce from his wife Gail Grech was finalised. She agreed, albeit cautiously, given her age and stage of life, and they all moved into the Altona property together in late 1991. The Altona property was in very poor condition, having been operated as a boarding house for a number of years. She and Paul cleaned and repaired the Altona property together.

9 Ms Deak-Fabrikant brought all of her furniture and household goods to furnish the Altona property. They celebrated their first Christmas there in December 1991 with her parents and her brothers and their families.

10 At the time that Ms Deak-Fabrikant went to live at the Altona property she was working full time as a nurse, and had savings from her property settlement with her exhusband. Paul Grech at that time was receiving a supporting parent's pension, having been injured in a motorcycle accident in the late 1980s. Stephen was not doing well at school, and she encouraged Paul to consider enrolling him in a private school. As a result of this encouragement, in February 1992, Stephen was enrolled at Westbourne Grammar, to commence in July 1992. Ms DeakFabrikant paid for the initial instalment of Stephen's school fees, as well as his school uniform and other educational expenses. She arranged for her son, Alex Fabrikant, to tutor Stephen in mathematics. She treated Stephen as if he were her own son, was proud of his achievements, and maintained a good relationship with him until he left home in 2001, after a conversation when she asked him to contribute to household expenses given that he had commenced working. Prior to that time, she and Paul funded his educational and living expenses, including travel, vehicles and electronic goods. Both she and Paul were upset about Stephen's subsequent estrangement from the family, which she worked hard to repair.

11 Ms Deak-Fabrikant contends that she lived at the Altona property as the domestic partner of Paul Grech continuously between mid to late 1991 and September 2008, when the relationship ended after Paul Grech assaulted her and he was removed from the Altona property by the police. While it had its ups and downs, like any relationship, it was a happy relationship until about late 2007 or early 2008. She and Paul attended and hosted a number of happy family gatherings, involving both her side of the family, and Paul's side of the family, including Paul's other children from his first marriage, James and Kathy. She helped care for James, who has an intellectual disability, and Kathy, who has psychiatric problems, and helped care for James' baby son, setting up a nursery for him at the Altona property. She and Paul shared a number of interest and hobbies, including gardening, and caring for their numerous pets.

12 Ms Deak-Fabrikant ceased working as a nurse in December 1992, retiring for health reasons. Since that time, she has received a disability pension, and some income from her work as a casual cleaner. She has contributed all of her income and her savings to the household, has paid for furniture, decoration, landscaping and gardening expenses, and pet care. She carried out all of the usual homemaking duties, and assisted Paul in his renovation business, taking phone calls and delivering materials, and assisting him in loading and unloading materials and tools. She assisted and supported Paul with the settlement of his family law proceedings with his exwife in mid1992, which resulted in him becoming the sole registered proprietor of the Altona property, along with an investment property in Ramu Parade, West Heidelberg. She assisted Paul to clean up this property before its sale in 1993. The proceeds of sale were used to pay for Stephen's school fees and to create a fund for their forthcoming wedding and honeymoon.

13 In 1993, when Paul established his renovation business, she and Paul agreed that they would work together and pool their funds for their mutual benefit. They took their 'honeymoon' in 1996, and she was introduced to Paul's relatives in Malta as his wife. Paul paid for their four month long trip to Europe and the Middle East.

14 In 1998, Paul suggested to her that they invest their accumulated savings in property, and they started to search for an investment property. They located the Errol Street property, and Paul paid the deposit and signed the contract of sale in her presence. Just prior to settlement, Paul brought home a large quantity of cash. As they counted it out together, he discovered he was $2,000 short. Ms Deak-Fabrikant offered to contribute $2,000 from her own savings, which Paul accepted. Paul assured her that he held her fifty per cent interest in the Errol Street property on trust for her because they had used their family funds to purchase the property. She and Paul did a lot of cleaning and repairing of the Errol Street property. Between 1999 and 2007, the property was leased at various times to Paul's children, James and Kathy, and their respective partners and friends, who paid rent to Paul. In 2008, Paul spent about six months and $20,000 renovating the Errol Street property to prepare it for lease.

15 After their separation in September 2008, Ms Deak-Fabrikant was shocked to discover that the Errol Street property was registered in Stephen Grech's name. At the time the Errol Street property was purchased in 1998, Stephen was a full time university student, living at the Altona property, and had no savings or income. He qualified for Austudy payments, which is consistent with him having a low income. She had never heard Stephen referring to the Errol Street property as his property, and he never visited his siblings there. Paul continues to use the Errol Street property to store his tools and 'junk' there. It is now very run-down and neglected.

16 Unbeknown to her, the equity in the Errol Street property was used by Stephen to secure a loan made to him to fund the purchase of the Ballarat Road property. Paul spent a number of weeks renovating the Ballarat Road property after its purchase in 2006. At that time, she believed this property had been purchased by Jelvie Grech's brother.

17 In March 1999, Paul purchased the Sanctuary Lakes property 'off the plan'. They intended to build a new family home there for their retirement. Paul assured Ms Deak-Fabrikant that before they moved there they would register their de facto relationship and add her name to the title of the Sanctuary Lakes property and the Errol Street property. She spent many nights around the table at the Altona property discussing the plans for the home with Paul, Stephen, Alex and Alex's wife, Michelle. They discussed their plans to move there together with their family and friends.

18 Paul obtained a building permit to commence construction on the Sanctuary Lakes property in 2003, but did not commence construction until 2004. From this time until 2007, he worked almost full time constructing their home. Paul asked her to contribute more to household expenses as he was not able to engage in other paid work. She also provided to him $5,000 in cash, which she inherited from her mother after her death in 2005, to pay for building materials. By the end of 2007, the house at the Sanctuary Lakes property was almost complete. However, Paul's failure to complete the Sanctuary Lakes property and to take steps to add Ms Deak-Fabrikant to the titles of the Sanctuary Lakes and Errol Street properties was becoming an increasing source of conflict between them.

19 The Sanctuary Lakes property was transferred to Jelvie Grech two days after Paul Grech left the Altona property. Since that time, the condition of the Sanctuary Lakes property has deteriorated sharply, with various fixtures and fittings having gone missing.

20 Ms Deak-Fabrikant bases her claim to the Speakmen Street property, which was purchased by Stephen and Jelvie Grech in 2001 and is their family home, on the proposition that given their resources at the time, Stephen having only just finished university, while Jelvie was a full time student, they could not possibly have funded a substantial cash deposit and paid their mortgage off within six years without significant funding from Paul Grech. In essence, Ms Deak-Fabrikant accuses Paul Grech of systematically siphoning off the family funds (to which she is entitled to a half share, by reason of Paul's promises to her, and their matrimonial relationship) for the benefit of Stephen and Jelvie Grech. This is consistent with a conversation she had with Stephen Grech when he was still a teenager living at the Altona property, to the effect that he despised his family and planned to acquire his father's assets for himself. As such, each of the five properties of which Stephen and/or Jelvie Grech are registered proprietors need to be brought into the 'pool' of assets of the relationship, which in turn ought to be equally divided between her and Paul Grech in recognition of their lengthy relationship and the financial and non-financial contributions she has made to the welfare of Paul and his family. Such a division would also be consistent with the promises Paul made to her at various times in their relationship. She relied upon those promises, and continued to contribute to the relationship upon the strength of those promises, such that it would be unreasonable for Paul, Stephen and Jelvie Grech to deny her interest in those properties.

21 Ms Deak-Fabrikant also contends that, in making an order for the adjustment of property interests, an allowance needs to be made for the deterioration in the value of the Sanctuary Lakes and Errol Street properties caused by the neglect of Paul, Stephen and Jelvie Grech. Further, an allowance ought to be made for the loss of opportunity to invest capital in other ways, and to receive rental income from the Errol Street and Sanctuary Lakes properties.[2]

22 Further, Ms Deak-Fabrikant seeks an award of damages against both Paul Grech and Stephen Grech for assaults said to have been committed by each of them upon her. Her claim against Paul Grech arises out of an alleged assault on the day he departed the Altona property, which she says has resulted in a physical disability and a diminution in her quality of life. She suggested the sum of $100,000 as an appropriate award of damages. As against Stephen Grech, she claims the sum of $50,000, on the basis that the threats he made to her physical safety and that of her pets shortly after the separation have caused her to live in fear for six years.

23 Finally, Ms Deak-Fabrikant stated that she wishes to be awarded the Altona property as part of her entitlement. At the conclusion of her opening statement at trial, she stated as follows:[3]

it is not only that I live there for so many years, I also created magnificent garden. It's the labour of my love and I will be not able anymore to do this due to my injury. It's also a large amount of pets which make provision and it will be catastrophe, like, pond with the fish, ... and enclosure for the cats, it will be very impossible, you know. And another very serious things why, apart from all this, it's cause I do not drive the car and facility of this house is so easy to access, just short walking for absolutely everything, from doctors, from chemist, from dentist, everything a short distance that I can live and manage in this location and I got magnificent supporting team of neighbours who always helping me if I need. So I would like it to ask if possible to leave it this property as part of my entitlement that I can continue to live in the location which is make my life easier.

24 As can be seen from the above extract from the transcript, English is not Ms DeakFabrikant's first language. She emigrated to Australia from the then Soviet Union in the 1970s. However, from my observations of her at trial, she is clearly intelligent, on her own account well educated and well read, and her English vocabulary and comprehension is excellent.

25 In making submissions on her behalf at the resumed trial on 31 August 2015, counsel did not repeat (or resile from) Ms DeakFabrikant's claim equal to half of the value of the five properties, including a transfer of the Altona property to her, but submitted that her contributions and her needs warranted an award of a home to live in and some cash. However, counsel had no instructions, and I had no evidence before me as to what such an award would amount to in financial terms.

26 Paul, Stephen and Jelvie Grech's version of events is somewhat different than that put forward by Ms Deak-Fabrikant. Paul says he first met Ms Deak-Fabrikant in June 1992, on a day that he attended at the Family Court with his solicitor to reach a property settlement with his ex-wife, who was also represented by solicitors. At that time, he had been living with Stephen at the family home at Polly Woodside Drive, Altona Meadows ('Altona Meadows property'). Stephen had been living with him since late 1991. A property settlement was reached on that day, but Paul required no assistance and received no assistance from Ms Deak-Fabrikant in that regard. He and Stephen moved to the Altona property together shortly after the property settlement, vacating the Altona Meadows property. The Altona property had been tenanted, and required some cleaning, all of which was carried out by him and Stephen.

27 He maintained contact with Ms Deak-Fabrikant after their first meeting. Sometime later in 1992, Ms Deak-Fabrikant told him she was having difficulties with her landlord and her son and his partner at her Richmond apartment, and asked if she could come and stay at the Altona property until she 'got on her feet'. She did so, and remained there until sometime in early 1993, when she moved to an apartment in Elsternwick ('Elsternwick property'). She remained there until mid to late 1994, when she returned to live in the Altona property. While she was living in the Elsternwick property, Paul carried out some minor renovations at that property, and they continued to see each other socially, both alone and in company.

28 Paul Grech steadfastly denies having ever asked Ms Deak-Fabrikant to marry him, and denies that he agreed that they would pool their resources for their common benefit and future retirement. He says that they kept their finances entirely separate, and that he told her on a number of occasions that he had no desire to remarry, and whatever he owned was for his children. He accepted that they were in a domestic relationship from 1994 to 2008, but says that after they returned from their overseas holiday in 1996, their relationship began to deteriorate. He was unhappy about the way in which Ms Deak-Fabrikant treated Stephen after the breakdown in the relationship between them in 1997, and about Ms Deak-Fabrikant's criticisms of his extended family. He accepted that Ms Deak-Fabrikant played a role as homemaker, but that he also contributed to cooking and cleaning for the household. He denied that Ms Deak-Fabrikant played any particular role in caring for his other two children or his grandchildren. He was critical of the changes she unilaterally made to the garden at the Altona property, and of the increasing number of pets she kept at the Altona property.

29 As for the properties said to form part of the asset pool of the relationship, he denied having any financial interest in the properties purchased in the name of Stephen and/or Stephen and Jelvie, including the Errol Street property. He agrees that he gave Stephen and Jelvie substantial cash gifts on two occasions: first at about the time of their engagement and wedding, and again on the occasion of Stephen's 30th birthday in 2007. He otherwise denies the allegation that he 'siphoned' off large sums of money to Stephen and Jelvie.

30 Paul Grech accepts that, for the purposes of the current proceeding, the Altona property and the Sanctuary Lakes property ought properly be considered as the asset pool of the relationship. He noted that the Altona property was acquired by him as a result of the property settlement between him and his ex-wife. He carried out some minor renovations on the property in 1995 (not 1993 as asserted by Ms Deak-Fabrikant), to which he contributed his labour and paid for materials. His ultimate plan for the Altona property, which he shared with Stephen when they first moved there in 1992, was to redevelop the land, and he and Stephen had made enquiries regarding finance and town planning requirements in the period leading up to the separation. The transfer of the Altona property to Stephen in January 2008 was made to facilitate Stephen obtaining finance to pursue the development of the Altona property. Those plans have been put on hold by reason of the caveats and this proceeding.

31 As for the Sanctuary Lakes property, Paul Grech says the original purchase was financed by the repayment of moneys lent by him over time to his brother, Joe Grech. The Sanctuary Lakes property was not purchased by him as a 'dream home' for their retirement, but as an investment opportunity, one of a number he and Stephen were considering at the time. He denies the assertion that he made promises to Ms Deak-Fabrikant that he would marry her and put her name on the title. He was in no rush to construct a house at the Sanctuary Lakes property, but did so, with Stephen's assistance, after receiving pressure from the Sanctuary Lakes Resort Management to do so. He denies that Ms Deak-Fabrikant made any direct or indirect contribution to the Sanctuary Lakes property, and, in fact, she frequently expressed her lack of interest in living there, as she does not drive, and it was too far from shops, transport, and facilities.

32 Paul Grech denies assaulting Ms Deak-Fabrikant on 28 September 2008, and says in fact she attempted to assault him when he returned to the Altona property some days after he left to collect his possessions. He did plead guilty to charges laid against him upon the advice of his lawyers 'to put the matter behind him'.

33 Paul Grech accepts that by reason of their long relationship, Ms Deak-Fabrikant is entitled to an adjustment of property interest in her favour. However, he rejects Ms Deak-Fabrikant's claim for an adjustment equivalent to fifty per cent of the value of the five properties, plus additional adjustments and damages. Counsel for Paul Grech submitted that an appropriate order would be in the range of ten to fifteen per cent of the asset pool of the relationship, depending upon the size of that pool, based upon the financial and nonfinancial contributions of Ms DeakFabrikant to the properties and the welfare of Paul Grech. Counsel submitted that if any further adjustment is warranted upon the basis of financial need or other like factors, then such an adjustment should not exceed a further five to ten per cent of the asset pool.

34 Stephen and Jelvie Grech's position in this proceeding can be summarised as follows:

(a) as to the duration and nature of the relationship between Paul Grech and Ms Deak-Fabrikant, they support, to the extent they are able to do so, Paul Grech's version of events;

(b) they reject Ms Deak-Fabrikant's contentions regarding the nature of the relationship between Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Stephen and the contribution made by Ms Deak-Fabrikant to Stephen's education and welfare; and

(c) they reject Ms Deak-Fabrikant's contention that she (or Paul) made any financial contribution to properties purchased by them, save for two cash gifts made by Paul in 2001 and 2007.

35 In relation to (b) above, Stephen says that the decision for him to enrol at Westbourne Grammar School was made before his father even met Ms Deak-Fabrikant, and, while Alex Fabrikant tutored him in mathematics on two or three occasions, he was largely tutored by his aunt Christine Grech or by another local tutor. While until 1997 he generally had a good relationship with Ms Deak-Fabrikant, their contact between 1993 and 1995 was relatively limited, in that she lived in Elsternwick for most of 1993 and 1994, and he lived with his grandmother in Coburg for most of 1994 and 1995, completing his VCE at Coburg Preston Secondary College, following which he returned to live at the Altona property prior to commencing his tertiary studies at La Trobe University. His relationship with Ms DeakFabrikant deteriorated after an incident at the kitchen table in 1997 where Ms Deak-Fabrikant turned on him (in Paul and Alex's presence) and they had an argument. After that time, they ceased to communicate, and she refused to allow him to eat food from the refrigerator.

36 Between 1997 and 2001, Stephen was busy with part-time work, university, and travel. He was very good friends with Alex Fabrikant, who ultimately was his best man at his wedding to Jelvie in 2003. He met Jelvie in 2000, when he was in his final year of university, and she was in her final year of school, and they formed a relationship. Early in 2001, not long after he returned to Australia after some overseas travel, he took Jelvie to visit the Altona property. Ms Deak-Fabrikant verbally abused both him and Jelvie. For Stephen, this was the final straw, and he left the Altona property and moved in with Jelvie and her mother. After that time, while he continued to maintain a close relationship with Paul Grech, he had next to no contact with Ms Deak-Fabrikant. She was not invited to his engagement party, his wedding, or he and Jelvie's annual birthday celebrations. She did not visit Jelvie and their first born son, Noah, in hospital after his birth in 2006, or attend Noah's first birthday party. She visited their home in Speakmen Street, Kensington on one occasion only, uninvited and in Paul's company, and he and Jelvie visited the Altona property on two occasions only, being a birthday dinner for Alex in 2005, and Paul's sixtieth birthday party in 2007.

37 In relation to the issue of whether Ms Deak-Fabrikant has any interest in any property purchased by them, Stephen Grech says that the purchase of the Errol Street property was funded by his savings, including funds in a trust account set up by his parents, and a gift from his father. Otherwise, Paul Grech did not contribute financially to the acquisition of the Errol Street property or the Ballarat Road property. Paul Grech carried out no renovations at any of their properties, the Speakmen Street property and the Ballarat Road property being almost brand new when purchased. They were able to fund a sizeable cash deposit on the Speakmen Street property from their savings from employment, and substantial cash gifts from friends and relatives (including Paul) on the occasion of their engagement and wedding. Stephen and Jelvie were able to devote a substantial part of their earnings to repayment of their mortgage through the assistance of Jelvie's mother, Elysabeth Pangalila, who lived with them at the Speakmen Street property for two years and paid most of the household expenses from her earnings, with the objective of enabling Stephen and Jelvie to repay their mortgage as soon as possible.

38 Stephen and Jelvie agree that the condition of the Errol Street and Sanctuary Lakes properties has deteriorated. The explanation in relation to the Errol Street property is that it was only ever purchased for its land value. It is zoned for commercial purposes, not residential purposes, and the building on the property has always been in poor condition. Stephen and Paul have been largely using it for storage, and Stephen eventually plans to construct a building suitable for commercial use on the Errol Street property.

39 As for the Sanctuary Lakes property, while an occupancy certificate was granted in early 2008, further internal works were required to make the property habitable, and further external works are required to comply with the requirements of the Sanctuary Lakes Resort Management. The placing of caveats on the five properties has hampered their ability to fund the cost of the remaining works. The outstanding works required mean that the Sanctuary Lakes property is unlettable.

40 Stephen and Jelvie Grech's position with respect to Ms DeakFabrikant's claim was less compromising than that of Paul Grech: they rejected that Ms DeakFabrikant had any valid claims to any of the five properties. Their position reflects the submissions made by Stephen Grech on 31 August 2015 that 'Ms Deak-Fabrikant has lied about the true nature of her relationship with my father, his children and his family to manipulate this Court into awarding her a claim that she isn't entitled to.'

41 As can be seen from the above narrative, there are areas of common ground, and areas of disagreement. The common ground between the parties is that Paul Grech and Ms DeakFabrikant met at the Family Court, that they were in a long term domestic relationship, and were recognised as a couple by family and friends. However, there are some key areas of disagreement, being:

(a) when the relationship commenced, and whether the parties were in a domestic relationship between 1991 and 1994;

(b) the nature of the commitments and promises made by Paul Grech to Ms DeakFabrikant, particularly with respect to marriage, property, and other financial matters;

(c) the nature and quality of the relationship between Ms DeakFabrikant and Paul Grech, and between Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Stephen Grech;

(d) the extent of the financial and nonfinancial contributions made by Ms DeakFabrikant to any of the five properties and the welfare of Paul and Stephen Grech and other family members;

(e) the events which took place during and immediately after the separation, and the consequences of those events, including the alleged assaults upon Ms DeakFabrikant by Paul and Stephen Grech, and the transfer of the Sanctuary Lakes property to Jelvie Grech;

(f) the circumstances and events surrounding the purchase of the Errol Street, Sanctuary Lakes, Speakmen Street, and Ballarat Road properties;

(g) whether the conduct of Paul, Stephen and/or Jelvie Grech have caused or contributed to the devaluation of the Sanctuary Lakes property and the Errol Street property; and

(h) the level of financial assistance provided by Paul Grech to Stephen and Jelvie Grech (and whether any such assistance is relevant to the issues in this proceeding).

The legislative framework and the parties' pleadings

42 In her amended counterclaim filed on 8 October 2009, Ms Deak-Fabrikant seeks, in summary, the following relief:

(a) declaration that Stephen and/or Jelvie Grech hold each of the five properties on trust for her in such proportions as the Court may determine;

(b) orders pursuant to s 63 of the Relationships Act that the transfers of the Altona property and the Sanctuary Lakes property to Stephen and Jelvie Grech respectively be set aside; and

(c) orders pursuant to s 45 of the Relationships Act for an adjustment of interests in respect of the property and financial resources of Paul Grech, including orders that Paul Grech transfer to Ms Deak-Fabrikant 'such properties as are ordered by the Court', or alternatively, that there be a sale of the properties and the distribution of proceeds of sale between Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Paul Grech; and

(d) damages for assaults allegedly committed upon her by Paul Grech.

43 On 10 July 2014, I granted leave for Ms DeakFabrikant to file and serve a further amended counterclaim. The additional claims brought in the further amended counterclaim include:

(a) a claim against Stephen Grech for assaults said to have taken place on 29 September, 2 October, 3 October and 11 October 2008;

(b) an allegation that Stephen and Jelvie Grech acquired the Altona property and the Sanctuary Lakes property with notice of Ms DeakFabrikant's interest in those properties; and

(c) claims for loss of rental income and loss and damage caused to the Errol Street and Sanctuary Lakes properties.

44 Section 45 of the Relationships Act provides as follows:

Order for adjustment

(1) On an application by a domestic partner under section 41 for an order to adjust interests with respect to the property of one or both of the domestic partners, a court may make an order adjusting the interests of the domestic partners in the property of one or both of them that seems just and equitable to it having regard to -

(a) the financial and non-financial contributions made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of the domestic partners to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property or to the financial resources of one or both of the partners; and

(b) the contributions, including any contributions made in the capacity of homemaker or parent, made by either of the domestic partners to the welfare of the other domestic partner or to the welfare of the family constituted by the partners and one or more of the following -

(i) a child of the partners;

(ii) a child accepted by the partners as one of the family, whether or not the child is a child of one or both of the partners; and

(c) the nature and duration of the domestic relationship; and

(d) any relevant matter referred to in section 51.

45 Section 51 provides as follows:

51 Order for maintenance

(1) On an application by a domestic partner or a caring partner under section 41 for an order for maintenance, a court may make the order if satisfied that the applicant is unable to support himself or herself adequately because -

(a) the partner's earning capacity has been adversely affected by the circumstances of the domestic relationship or registered caring relationship; or

(b) of any other reason arising in whole or part from the circumstances of the domestic relationship or registered caring relationship.

(2) In determining whether to make an order and in fixing any amount to be paid under the order, a court must have regard to the following -

(a) the income, property and financial resources of each domestic partner or caring partner (including, subject to subsection (3), the rate of any pension, allowance or benefit paid, payable or entitled to be paid to either partner) and the physical and mental capacity of each partner for appropriate gainful employment;

(b) the financial needs and obligations of each domestic partner or caring partner;

(c) the responsibilities of either domestic partner or caring partner to support any other person;

(d) the terms of any order made or proposed to be made under section 45;

(e) any payments provided for the maintenance of -

(i) a child of the domestic partners; or

(ii) a child accepted by the domestic partners as one of the family, whether or not the child is a child of one or both of the partners;

(f) the standard of living that is reasonable for each domestic partner or caring partner in all the circumstances;

(g) the extent to which the payment of maintenance to the domestic partner or caring partner whose maintenance is under consideration would increase his or her earning capacity by enabling him or her -

(i) to undertake a course of education or training; or

(ii) to establish a business; or

(iii) otherwise to obtain adequate income;

(h) the extent to which the domestic partner or caring partner whose maintenance is under consideration has contributed to the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the other partner;

(i) the age and state of health of each domestic partner or caring partner;

(j) the length of the domestic relationship or registered caring relationship;

(k) the extent to which the domestic relationship or registered caring relationship has affected the earning capacity of the domestic partner or caring partner whose maintenance is under consideration;

(l) any other facts or circumstances the court considers relevant.

46 Counsel for Paul Grech submitted that it would only be necessary for me to consider the matters set out in s 51(2) if I were to find that Ms DeakFabrikant is unable to support herself adequately because her earning capacity has been adversely affected by the circumstances of the domestic relationship, or because of some other reason arising in whole or in part from the circumstances of the relationship. In that regard, Ms DeakFabrikant has been in receipt of a disability pension since December 1992, her retirement from nursing being necessitated by an unusual medical condition. She does not assert that this medical condition was caused by or connected with the relationship between her and Paul Grech. However, I doubt that this construction of the Relationship Act is correct. It is necessary, in order for a party to seek an order for maintenance under s 41, that the threshold in s 51(1) must be satisfied. But no such threshold requirement is imposed by the terms of s 45(1)(d), which requires the Court, when determining whether it is just and equitable to make an order for adjustment under s 45(1), to have regard to any relevant matter referred to in s 51.

63 Transactions to defeat claims

(1) If a court is satisfied that an existing or anticipated order in a proceeding under this Part is likely to be defeated by the making of an instrument or disposition by a party to the proceeding, the court may set aside or restrain the making of the instrument or disposition.

(2) The court may order that -

(a) any property dealt with by an instrument or disposition referred to in subsection (1) be taken in execution, or used or applied in, or charged with payment of -

(i) any sums payable under an order adjusting interests in the property of one or more of the parties to the proceeding; or

(ii) costs; or

(b) the proceeds of a sale be paid into court to satisfy an order of the court.

...

(5) In this section -

disposition includes a sale and a gift.

48 While Ms DeakFabrikant's claim is the primary claim in the proceeding, and she has been treated, in effect, as the moving party since 4 June 2013 when I made orders setting the matter down for trial, Stephen and Jelvie Grech also have claims which require adjudication in this proceeding. In their amended statement of claim filed on 22 September 2010, Stephen and Jelvie Grech seek:

(a) declarations that Ms DeakFabrikant does not have the estate or interest claimed by her in the five properties or any of them;

(b) orders for the removal of the caveats lodged on her behalf over the five properties;

(c) an injunction restraining Ms DeakFabrikant from lodging any further or other caveats over the five properties or any of them;

(d) compensation or damages at common law or pursuant to s 118 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) caused by the lodgement of the caveats; and

(e) possession of the Altona property, payment for use and occupation of the Altona property, and mesne profits.

49 There is a substantial overlap in the factual matters relied upon by Ms Deak-Fabrikant in support of her claims that the five properties be held upon trust for her, and her claim for an adjustment of property interests under the Relationships Act. Accordingly, prior to the commencement of the trial on 21 July 2014, I circulated amongst the parties a 'List of Agreed Issues for Trial', prepared following my review of the pleadings and the extensive affidavit material filed on behalf of the parties. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the parties agreed that this list of issues was a fair summary of the factual and legal disputes in the proceeding. These issues are:

1. Duration of de facto relationship: did it commence in 1991 or 1994?

1. Does Paul Grech and/or Larissa Deak-Fabrikant have or did one or both of them ever have a beneficial interest in the following properties:

• 18 Speakmen Street Kensington;

• 17 Errol Street Braybrook;

• 4/233 Ballarat Road, Braybrook?

1. Did Larissa Deak-Fabrikant make contributions to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of the properties referred to in the statement of claim or any of them?
2. Did Larissa Deak-Fabrikant make contributions to the financial resources of:

1. Did Larissa Deak-Fabrikant make contributions to the welfare of Paul Grech and/or his children, including as a homemaker and/or a parent?
2. Did Paul Grech ever promise to Larissa Deak-Fabrikant that he held any or all of the properties referred to in the statement of claim on trust for her as to 50% of their value?
3. Did Paul Grech and/or Stephen Grech assault Larissa Deak-Fabrikant, and, if so, what damages is she entitled to as a result?
4. What relevance, if any, do the events which post-dated the separation of Larissa Deak-Fabrikant and Paul Grech have to the Court's determination under s 45 of the Relationships Act 2008 (Vic)?

9. Identification and valuation of the asset pool?

1. Has the value of any of the properties referred to in the statement of claim been diminished by the conduct of any of the parties?

50 Upon reflection, the issue referred to at item 8 above is not a material issue in the proceeding, or can be considered in the context of other issues.

51 For completeness, I would add two further issues which emerged during the course of the trial: whether there was ever an agreement between Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Paul Grech that they would share their assets and income for their common benefit, and whether the transfers by Paul Grech of the Altona and Sanctuary Lakes properties were intended to defeat any potential claims by Ms Deak-Fabrikant against Paul Grech.

52 Stephen and Jelvie Grech issued this proceeding in February 2009, seeking the removal of the caveats over the five properties, following which Ms Deak-Fabrikant issued a counterclaim substantially in the form of the current version of her claim. However, on 11 February 2011, the proceeding was stayed pending the hearing and determination of charges laid against Paul Grech alleging he had raped Ms DeakFabrikant, as at that time the counterclaim sought damages for sexual assault. The trial in respect of those charges ('rape proceeding') was scheduled for July 2012. In the days leading up to the commencement of the trial, the Office of Public Prosecutions ('OPP') withdrew the charges against Paul Grech in the rape proceeding, and the trial did not proceed. At the request of Paul Grech, this proceeding was listed for directions on 18 March 2013, when the proceeding was referred to judicial mediation. On 4 June 2013, following an unsuccessful mediation, I made orders for the filing and service of affidavit evidence, and fixed the proceeding for trial on 23 April 2014 on an estimate of 10 days. On 10 December 2013, I made orders extending time for the filing and service of further affidavits by Paul, Stephen and Jelvie Grech, and directing the parties to appoint an agreed valuer or panel of valuers to value the five properties. I made an order that if Paul Grech failed to appear at the next directions hearing, his defence to counterclaim would be struck out. At this time, Paul Grech was not represented by solicitors.

53 On 25 February 2014, the solicitors for Ms Deak-Fabrikant obtained leave to cease to act. Paul Grech appeared in person on that day. A further extension of time was given to Paul and Stephen Grech to file and serve the affidavits upon which they intended to rely. These orders were self-executing.

54 The solicitors for Stephen and Jelvie Grech were granted leave to cease to act on 20 March 2014. On or about that day, Clancy Triado commenced acting for Paul Grech. A large number of affidavits were filed on behalf of Paul and Stephen Grech on 25 March 2014. However, there was satisfactory evidence regarding the unsuccessful attempts to serve these affidavits upon Ms Deak-Fabrikant on 18 March 2014, the due date set by the orders of 25 February 2014, and I vacated the self-executing orders.

55 On 11 April 2014, being the next scheduled directions hearing, I made orders vacating the trial date of 23 April 2014, and re-fixed the trial to commence on 21 July 2014. Ms DeakFabrikant failed to attend the hearing on 11 April 2014, having informed the Court by letter in the preceding days that she was unwell, and that she would not be able to participate in court proceedings for two months. The adjournment to 21 July 2014 was granted over the objections of the other parties in the light of that correspondence. However, I made a notation in 'other matters' that:

The defendant has produced to the Court medical evidence which indicates, with some precision, the medical conditions from which she is suffering, and her inability to attend this proceeding. The adjournment is intended to provide the defendant with ample time to recover and then prepare for trial. In the event that she seeks a further adjournment on health grounds, any medical evidence in support of the application should be by way of affidavit, and filed and served on the other parties in advance. The medical practitioners are likely to be required to attend Court to give evidence.

56 On 10 July 2014, the matter was listed for pretrial directions. On 23 June 2014, Ms DeakFabrikant issued a summons, seeking, among other things, orders that paragraphs 74 and 167 of and exhibit 'PG-7' to the affidavit of Paul Grech sworn on 18 March 2014 be struck out. These parts of the affidavit referred to documents held on the file of Dr Albert Kaplan, Ms DeakFabrikant's treating psychiatrist, including handwritten notes apparently made by him and correspondence between him and Dr Slonim, Ms Deak-Fabrikant's general practitioner ('Dr Kaplan's records'). At that hearing, I determined that any disputes regarding the admissibility of evidence would be dealt with at the commencement of the trial. During the course of that hearing, Ms DeakFabrikant made remarks which suggested that she questioned the authenticity of Dr Kaplan's records. As a consequence, the solicitors for Paul Grech caused to be issued subpoenas directed to Dr Kaplan and the OPP for the production of documents at trial. The production and inspection of these documents, and their admission into evidence, became a source of substantial disputation at the trial.

57 Also on 10 July 2014, Ms DeakFabrikant indicated to the Court that she was not proposing to press her claim for damages said to arise out of alleged sexual assaults by Paul Grech upon her.

58 As noted above, the trial was fixed for hearing on an estimate of ten days, to commence on 21 July 2014, and to conclude on or about 1 August 2014. This proved to be a wildly optimistic estimate. In fact, the trial was listed on 28 days over the period between 21 July 2014 and 3 December 2014. A number of matters contributed to the length of the trial and the delays in concluding the trial, including:

(a) the failure of Ms Deak-Fabrikant to attend Court on seven listed hearing days;

(b) adjournments necessitated by Ms Deak-Fabrikant's ill-health, Stephen and Jelvie Grech's travel arrangements, and other Court commitments;

(c) a number of days were consumed in dealing with the issue of the admissibility of Dr Kaplan's records, and the best part of another day was spent in the hearing and determination of Ms DeakFabrikant's application that I recuse myself for bias;

(d) the Court was required to rise early on a number of days owing to the unavailability of Ms Deak-Fabrikant's witnesses;

(e) quite some time was spent in dealing with ongoing discovery issues during the course of the trial, in particular, the production during the course of the trial by Ms DeakFabrikant of further photographs, greeting cards, receipts for utility bills and veterinary expenses, bank statements, and other sundry documents;

(f) I permitted Ms Deak-Fabrikant an opportunity to undertake a lengthy re-examination of herself, which, in addition to providing her with an opportunity to respond to the matters raised in crossexamination, also involved her taking the Court through numerous and voluminous exhibits to her affidavits, including photographs, DVDs, greeting cards, and invoices for household expenses, and to present additional documents to the Court which had not previously been exhibited to affidavits or discovered; and

(g) the argumentative and combative manner in which the trial was conducted, which resulted in most witnesses taking far longer to give their evidence than might have been anticipated given their knowledge of and involvement in the issues in this proceeding, and the relatively brief affidavits sworn by them in the proceeding.

59 One of the difficulties associated with the conduct of the trial arose out of the late service of affidavits on the part of Paul, Stephen and Jelvie Grech. Voluminous and detailed affidavits were filed and served on their behalf in late March 2014, taking issue with each and every assertion made by Ms DeakFabrikant and her witnesses, and going into the minutiae of a range of domestic and financial matters canvassing a period of approximately twenty years. These difficulties were compounded by what can now be seen as an unfortunate oversight during the course of the hearing on 11 April 2014, when the trial was adjourned from 23 April 2014 to 21 July 2014 (in Ms DeakFabrikant's absence), when no orders were made for the filing of affidavit evidence in reply. At the commencement of the trial, Ms DeakFabrikant submitted she should be permitted to give oral evidence in reply, and ask further questions of her witnesses in reply. While she was perfectly entitled to take this course, it was productive of argument when Ms DeakFabrikant's questions strayed beyond the matters raised in the March 2014 affidavits, which caused further delays.

60 On 27 October 2014, part way through what appeared likely to be a lengthy cross-examination of Paul Grech by Ms Deak-Fabrikant, Ms Deak-Fabrikant again failed to attend Court, citing illhealth. On 28 October 2014, when she failed to attend Court again, I adjourned the trial to 30 October 2014, and directed that Ms Deak-Fabrikant make available her treating doctor to appear in Court that day. The purpose of requiring that Ms DeakFabrikant's treating doctor attend was for him or her to provide the Court with an explanation for Ms DeakFabrikant's failure to attend Court, an opinion regarding her capacity to proceed further with the trial, and what measures the Court could take to alleviate the impact of the trial upon her health. On 30 October 2014, Ms Deak-Fabrikant failed to attend Court, having informed the Court that she would not make available her treating doctor. The other parties made an application to proceed with the trial in her absence.

61 On 30 October 2014, I determined that the trial would proceed in the absence of the Ms Deak-Fabrikant in accordance with rule 49.02(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 ('Rules'). In my reasons,[4] I noted that Ms DeakFabrikant had frequently failed to attend Court without first making an application for an adjournment with adequate evidence in support. Further, Ms Deak-Fabrikant had failed to comply with my direction that her treating doctor attend Court to provide details of her medical condition and the implications for the future conduct of the trial. I noted that the solicitors for Paul Grech had notified Ms Deak-Fabrikant two days prior to the application for leave to proceed that such an application would be made unless a formal application to adjourn was made. I determined that the above conduct demonstrated that Ms DeakFabrikant had breached her obligations under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ('CPA').

62 I observed that litigants disobey court orders at their peril and that the Court must be pro-active in promoting the overarching purpose of the CPA. While some allowances must be made for self-represented litigants, there comes a point when granting further allowances and indulgences creates an undue burden on the other parties to the proceeding and the Court, and there was ample evidence of prejudice to the other parties.

63 The evidence was concluded on that day, and the trial was adjourned to 3 December 2014 to enable the parties to make final submissions. Once again, Ms Deak-Fabrikant failed to attend Court, having sent through to the Court a bundle of medical certificates the previous day. She also failed to avail herself of the opportunity to file and serve written submissions by 16 January 2015. As during the course of her evidence Ms DeakFabrikant had frequently referred to her intended reliance upon bank statements of Paul Grech and Stephen Grech to make good her contentions that Paul Grech had paid for the Errol Street property and made substantial contributions to the Speakmen Street property, I directed that the solicitors for Paul Grech deliver to the Court all bank statements discovered in the proceeding.

64 Of the witnesses called on behalf of the Grech parties, only Joe Grech and Paul Grech were subject to crossexamination by Ms DeakFabrikant, Joe Grech having been interposed during the first week of trial as he had pending overseas travel. Paul Grech's crossexamination had been underway for the best part of a day when Ms DeakFabrikant ceased attending Court.

65 On 8 April 2015, while judgment was reserved, Altona Legal filed a notice that they had commenced acting for Ms DeakFabrikant. On 16 June 2015, Ms DeakFabrikant filed a summons seeking the following orders:

(a) that she have leave to re-open the proceeding; and

(b) further or alternatively, she have leave to resume presentation of her evidence in the proceeding and her crossexamination of Stephen and Paul Grech.

66 However, at the hearing of the application on 21 July 2015, counsel for Ms DeakFabrikant clarified that what was really being sought was the opportunity to crossexamine Paul and Stephen Grech and possibly other witnesses called on their behalf.

67 On 6 August 2015, I determined not to allow Ms DeakFabrikant's application to reopen the trial, but allowed the parties to make further submissions on 31 August 2015.[5] I treated Ms DeakFabrikant's application as being, in substance, an application to set aside my orders of 30 October 2014 that the trial proceed in her absence. Accordingly, the principles ordinarily referable to an application under rule 49.02(2) of the Rules were considered, being Ms DeakFabrikant's explanation for her absence from Court on 30 October 2014, any delay in making the application, whether there was a bona fide issue to be tried, and any prejudice caused to the other parties by granting the application.[6] In summary, I held that while Ms DeakFabrikant would suffer prejudice by reason of being unable to crossexamine the Grech parties, the situation was largely of her own making, and her delay in making the application and the prejudice to the other parties which would be occasioned by granting the application weighed in favour of refusing the application. Other relevant matters were the importance of finality of litigation, the need to give effect to the overarching purpose of the CPA, and the efficient use of Court resources.

68 Before turning to the evidence, some mention ought to be made of two issues which arose during the course of the trial: the admission into evidence of Dr Kaplan's records, and the state of the evidence regarding the valuation of the five properties.

69 The issue of the admission of Dr Kaplan's records was first raised at the directions hearing on 10 July 2014, which was also the return date for Ms Deak-Fabrikant's application to strike out certain paragraphs of, and an exhibit to, Paul Grech's affidavit.

70 Paragraph 74 of Mr Grech's affidavit is the critical paragraph, and is reproduced below:

Larissa moved out of Queen Street in approximately March 1993. There is documentary evidence showing that Larissa moved out of Queen Street in early 1993. In late 2008 Larissa made false allegations to the police that I had raped her and criminal proceedings were commenced. I will depose further as to these allegations and proceedings later in my Affidavit, however as part of the criminal proceedings a Brief of Evidence was produced for the Committal Mention on 29 November 2010. The Brief of Evidence contains copies of Larissa's medical files and includes and now shown to me at the time of swearing this affidavit and marked 'PG7' are extracts from the Brief of Evidence as follows:

(a) Letter of referral dated 11 May 1993 from Larissa's GP, Dr David Slonim, to Dr A Kaplan. This letter notes Larissa's address as 15/211-213 Hotham Street, Elsternwick and in reasons for referral states 'recent separation from de facto relationship'.

(b) Letter from Dr Albert Kaplan to Dr Slonim dated 24 June 1993, thanking him for his referral and stating among other things that 'to compound her problems she has been experiencing difficulty in a new relationship she developed a year ago which now seems to be floundering.'

(c) Notes made by Dr Kaplan (page 122 of police brief). Highlighted sections on those notes have the number 1, 2, 3 and 4 placed next to them. At number 1, the notes confirm that Larissa left Queen Street around early 1993, with Dr Kaplan writing 'left him April 93'. At number 2, Dr Kaplan recorded 'Difficulties adjusting to small flat'. At number 3, Dr Kaplan makes reference to Larissa moving into Queen Street in mid1992, writing ' ... I thought had put things behind her mid-92 when moved in [with] boyfriend ... '. At number 4, Dr Kaplan records 'Doesn't feel has future with him.'

Extracts from County Court Police Brief of Evidence:

(a) letter of referral dated 11 May 1993 from Dr Slonim to Dr Kaplan (page 123 of Police Brief);

(b) letter from Dr Kaplan to Dr Slonim dated 24 June 1993 (page 185 of Police Brief);

(c) notes made by Dr Kaplan in 1993 (page 122 of Police Brief).

72 The documents included at exhibit 'PG-7' match the description contained in Paul Grech's affidavit and exhibit note cover.

73 As indicated earlier, at the hearing on 10 July 2014, Ms DeakFabrikant made remarks which indicated that she disputed the authenticity of Dr Kaplan's records. On the following day, the solicitors for Paul Grech issued subpoenas for the production of documents directed at Dr Kaplan and the OPP. The subpoena directed at Dr Kaplan sought the following documents:

1. In relation Larissa Deak-Fabrikant born 2 August 1947:

(a) Document titled 'Request for Consultation,' dated 11 May 1993, address to Dr A Kaplan from Dr David Slonim;

(b) Letter from Dr Albert Kaplan to Dr D Slonim dated 24 June 1993;

(c) Any notes or records or other documents relating to Larissa DeakFabrikant's appointments or attendances with or upon Dr Albert Kaplan in June and/or July 1993; and

(d) Any notes or records or other documents relating to Mrs Larissa DeakFabrikant's appointments or attendances with or upon Dr Albert Kaplan in October 1998.

Any Brief of Evidence prepared in relation to proceedings involving:

(a) the accused, Paul Grech born 21 August 1947; and

(b) alleged victim, Larissa Deak-Fabrikant born 2 August 1947.

75 Ms Deak-Fabrikant, in a notice dated 16 July 2014, objected to the subpoenas on the basis that, in relation to Dr Kaplan, 'the medical file is strictly confidential record concerning my medical condition' and in relation to the OPP, on the basis that the documents sought are 'not relevant to the matter in the Supreme Court'.

76 Dr Kaplan complied with the subpoena, under protest. In his covering letter dated 10 July 2014, Dr Kaplan wrote as follows:

I am writing to register my objection to providing copies of confidential information contained in my medical records of Mrs Deak-Fabrikant.

I object to the information being released to the individual requesting that information, as that individual was involved in the stress and trauma which Mrs DeakFabrikant experienced. Access of this information to that individual is likely to cause Mrs Deak-Fabrikant considerable distress.

I am also deeply disturbed and alarmed that the information requested is specific and indicates that the requester is in possession of knowledge that Mrs Deak-Fabrikant's general practitioner wrote a referral to myself dated 11 May 1993 and that I wrote a letter to the referring doctor on 24 June 1993. In addition, it requests copies of my records on two specific dates. I have only in the past provided copies of my records to Mrs Deak-Fabrikant and I have not provided copies of these records to any other individual or authority.

77 As it turns out, the last sentence in the letter was not correct, Dr Kaplan having provided his file to the informant in the rape proceeding, with Ms Deak-Fabrikant's consent.

78 Partly in response to Dr Kaplan's and Ms Deak-Fabrikant's concerns, I ordered that inspection of the subpoenaed documents be limited to the solicitors and counsel of Paul Grech. That order remains in force.

79 On 22 July 2014, I dismissed Ms Deak-Fabrikant's objection to documents relating to records of her medical treatment being produced for inspection and admitted into evidence. The key issues raised were whether the documents were illegally obtained, whether they were confidential and contained sensitive material and whether they were relevant to the proceeding. I noted that Dr Kaplan's records had been provided by Dr Kaplan to the informant in the rape proceeding in 2010. Further, I determined that the documents contained relevant information regarding the commencement of the relationship and the nature and quality of the relationship. The fact that documents were of a confidential or sensitive nature did not preclude their admission.

80 During the course of the argument regarding the inspection of the subpoenaed documents, Ms Deak-Fabrikant relied upon s 28(2) of the Evidence Act 1958 ('medical privilege provision'). Both counsel for Paul Grech and I noted that this Act had been superseded by the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), which contained no equivalent provision. Unfortunately, neither counsel for Paul Grech nor I at the time appreciated that the medical privilege provision had survived as s 28 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic) ('EMPA'). Section 28(2) of the EMPA provides that:

(2) No physician or surgeon shall without the consent of his patient divulge in any civil suit action or proceeding or an investigation by a Complaints Investigator under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 any information which he has acquired in attending the patient and which was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient.

81 On 6 August 2014, Ms DeakFabrikant maintained her opposition to the admission into evidence of Dr Kaplan's records. Counsel for Paul Grech submitted that, relying upon the principles regarding the waiver of privilege as provided for in Mann v Carnell,[7] Ms DeakFabrikant had waived any claim for confidentiality by, first, making a claim for psychological injury in her claims against Paul and Stephen Grech, and secondly, by exhibiting a report by Dr Kaplan to her primary affidavit. This report had been ruled as inadmissible, on the basis that Ms DeakFabrikant did not intend to call Dr Kaplan as a witness. As events unfolded, Dr Kaplan was subpoenaed by Paul Grech, and did give evidence.

82 At the hearing on 6 August 2014, Mr Andrew Saunders of counsel appeared, at my request, as a friend of the Court. He submitted that it was open to me to find that Ms DeakFabrikant, by disclosing Dr Kaplan's report, had waived her claim for confidentiality in respect of Dr Kaplan's records. However, he submitted that given that Ms DeakFabrikant had made allegations of sexual assault against Paul Grech, the provisions of Division 2A of Part II of the EMPA would apply to Dr Kaplan's records. The provisions in this division of the EMPA provide further protection from disclosure of communications to medical practitioners and counsellors by persons against whom a sexual assault has been committed or is alleged to have been committed. Mr Saunders submitted that these provisions would apply to Dr Kaplan's records, notwithstanding that the OPP had withdrawn the charges of rape against Paul Grech, Ms DeakFabrikant had withdrawn her claims against Paul Grech in relation to the alleged sexual assaults in this proceeding, and the crossexamination of Ms DeakFabrikant did not traverse those parts of Dr Kaplan's records which recorded parts of those communications where Ms DeakFabrikant reported to Dr Kaplan allegations of sexual assault. I agreed that these provisions of the EMPA applied, and the outstanding issue was whether I ought to grant leave for Dr Kaplan's records to be adduced into evidence under the provisions of s 32D of the EMPA.

(1) A court must not grant leave to compel the production of, to produce or to adduce protected evidence unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that -

(a) the evidence will, either by itself or having regard to other evidence produced or adduced or to be produced or adduced by the party seeking leave, have substantial probative value to a fact in issue; and

(b) other evidence of similar or greater probative value concerning the matters to which the protected evidence relates is not available; and

(c) the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of confidential communications and protecting a protected confider from harm is substantially outweighed by the public interest in admitting, into evidence, evidence of substantial probative value.

(2) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account for the purposes of subsection (1)(c), the court must take into account -

(a) the likelihood, and the nature or extent, of harm that would be caused to the protected confider if the protected evidence is produced or adduced;

(b) the extent to which the protected evidence is necessary to allow the accused to make a full defence;

(c) the need to encourage victims of sexual offences to seek counselling and the extent to which victims may be discouraged to do so, or the extent to which the effectiveness of counselling may be diminished, if the protected evidence were produced or adduced;

(d) whether the party seeking to compel the production of or to produce or adduce the protected evidence is doing so on the basis of a discriminatory belief or bias;

(e) whether the protected confider objects to the disclosure of the protected evidence;

(f) the nature and extent of the reasonable expectation of confidentiality and the potential prejudice to the privacy of any person.

(3) A court may grant leave to compel the production of, or to produce or adduce, part of -

(b) the contents of a document recording a confidential communication -

and, if so, that part of the document may be made available, or that part of its contents disclosed, in any manner that the court thinks fit to the party seeking to compel its production or to produce or adduce it in evidence.

(4) The court must state its reasons for giving or refusing to give leave under this section.

(5) If leave is refused under this section, that fact must not be referred to in the presence of the jury, if any.

84 On 7 August 2014, I determined that Ms Deak-Fabrikant had waived privilege in the contents of Dr Kaplan's file by disclosing his report as an exhibit to her primary affidavit in support of her claim for damages for psychological injury, and adjourned the question about whether leave be granted pursuant to s 32D of the EMPA until a date after Dr Kaplan attended Court.

85 I referred to the decision of Judd J in Elliott v Tippett[8] and stated that it was generally unfair for a party to maintain an assertion of confidentiality over the whole of confidential communications where that party has sought to disclose a part of the otherwise privileged communications so as to achieve some forensic or commercial advantage. I further stated that '[o]nce a confidential communication has been disclosed, it loses its character of confidence and that disclosure cannot be reversed' even if the claims to which the evidence relates have been withdrawn. While Dr Kaplan's report had earlier been ruled as inadmissible at trial, it was the disclosure of the report, not the attempt to admit the report into evidence that raised the question of whether privilege had been waived.

86 Finally, I waived the notice requirements under section 32C of the EMPA, as both Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Dr Kaplan had been aware of Paul Grech's intention to put Dr Kaplan's notes into evidence for some weeks, and a further delay of the proceeding was undesirable. I determined that Dr Kaplan and Ms Deak-Fabrikant could address the issue of whether the Court ought to admit Dr Kaplan's records into evidence under s 32D at the next day of hearing (Dr Kaplan having been subpoenaed to attend Court on 11 August 2014).

87 As it turned out, Dr Kaplan was excused from attending Court on 11 August 2014 owing to his ill health. The trial was adjourned part heard on 13 August 2014. In the meantime, Ms Deak-Fabrikant issued a subpoena to the OPP for the production of their file in relation to the rape proceeding in order to obtain evidence in support of her contention that Dr Kaplan's records had been obtained by Paul Grech by unlawful means. On 29 September 2014, senior counsel for the OPP appeared and successfully argued that a substantial part of the file was immune from disclosure on the grounds of legal professional privilege.

88 Dr Kaplan appeared on 25 September 2014, the day after the trial resumed. During the course of giving evidence, Dr Kaplan verified the authenticity of the documents contained in his records, including his notes and the correspondence between him and Dr Slonim, gave evidence as to the circumstances in which his records were produced to the informant in the rape proceeding, and gave evidence in response to questions from counsel for Paul Grech and me regarding the potential impact upon Ms Deak-Fabrikant of the admission of his records into evidence, by reference to the considerations required to be taken into account in determining whether to grant leave under s 32D of the EMPA.

89 Dr Kaplan gave evidence that he was disturbed to find that Paul Grech's solicitors had access to his file, and that he considered that it would be distressing for Ms Deak-Fabrikant to discover that the information in her medical records had been disclosed. He considered that this distress would be alleviated to some extent by the orders limiting inspection of the documents produced to the Court to the solicitors and counsel for Paul Grech, but that it was the public disclosure of the contents of his file that would be distressing to her. He considered that the cause of distress would include disclosure of the records concerning sexual assaults, other assaults, and difficulties in the relationship over many years. He confirmed that Ms Deak-Fabrikant consulted him between 1993 and 1998, again between 2001 and 2003, and then from 2008 to the current day.

90 It was put to Dr Kaplan that Ms Deak-Fabrikant had denied a number of the matters which were referred to in his notes. He agreed that being 'caught out' might be distressing to Ms Deak-Fabrikant, and his swearing to the accuracy of his notes might compromise the therapeutic relationship between them. He was unable to say whether the disclosure of personal matters by Ms Deak-Fabrikant in her affidavits filed in this proceeding would mean that it was less likely that she would suffer harm by reason of admission of his records into evidence. He was unsure as to the use to which his records might have been put in the rape proceeding.

91 Ms Deak-Fabrikant questioned Dr Kaplan as to whether a woman suffering from the symptoms of menopause may be experiencing depression and anxiety, and might be unbalanced. He agreed that such a person's objectivity might be affected by their mood. He confirmed that Ms Deak-Fabrikant told him that the OPP had told her that his records had been disclosed to Paul Grech, and that she had told him at that time she felt violated and vulnerable, and was deeply distressed.

92 On 1 October 2014, I delivered written reasons for my decision on 30 September 2014 to grant leave for Dr Kaplan's medical records to be adduced into evidence pursuant to s 32D of the EMPA.

93 In summary, I determined that the records had substantial probative value in relation to the time during which Ms Deak-Fabrikant cohabited with Paul Grech, the nature of their relationship and the nature of her relationship with Stephen Grech, particularly in light of her assertions regarding contributions to the welfare of Stephen Grech and assertions regarding certain promises made by Paul Grech. Further, due to the deeply conflicting versions of events, I considered that contemporaneous documents would assist in assessing the credibility of the parties. I noted that the proceeding was of great personal significance to the parties as it concerned five properties with a cumulative value of over two million dollars and that they had been involved in bitter and protracted disputes for some six years.

94 I considered that any irreparable harm caused by the disclosure of Dr Kaplan's records to Ms DeakFabrikant occurred when she became aware, in May 2012, that Paul Grech had come into possession of Dr Kaplan's records. I was not satisfied that the disclosure made by the OPP was otherwise than inadvertent. In particular, I was not satisfied that this occurred as a result of some misfeasance or corruption, as asserted by Ms Deak-Fabrikant.[9]

95 Finally, I noted that the confidential communications relied on by Paul Grech do not record discussions between Ms DeakFabrikant and Dr Kaplan regarding the alleged sexual assault and its impact upon her. I noted that the definition of 'confidential communication', in light of s 32AB and s 32D(2), made it clear that the restrictions on disclosure are targeted at the protection of victims of sexual assault.

96 As for the question of the valuations of the five properties, on 10 December 2014, I made orders that the parties appoint an agreed valuer or valuers to provide evidence to the Court. I later vacated that order after it became apparent that the likelihood of any cooperation taking place was slim.

97 Stephen Grech relied upon an affidavit and expert report of Mr Paul De Gilio of 8 April 2014 in respect of the value of the Altona and Sanctuary Lakes properties. Mr De Gilio gave evidence by telephone at trial (on 30 October 2014), and confirmed the accuracy of his report. Mr De Gilio did not have access to the Altona property, but based upon an external inspection, interior photographs, and instructions from Paul and Stephen Grech, Mr De Gilio valued the Altona property at $740,000, being the mid-point of the estimated selling range of $720,000 to $760,000. Ms Deak-Fabrikant did not dispute this valuation.

98 Mr De Gilio valued the Sanctuary Lakes property as being in the range of $520,000 to $560,000. In his report, he stated that: 'As stated the building adds little value in its current condition and prospective purchasers would most likely remove the dwelling and replace it with a premium home.' Ms DeakFabrikant did not contest this valuation, but relied upon the statement in Mr De Gilio's report to assert that Jelvie Grech had allowed the Sanctuary Lakes property to deteriorate in value.

99 While Ms DeakFabrikant did not call any valuation evidence, I allowed her to tender market appraisals of the Errol Street, Ballarat Road and Speakmen Street properties, Kensington, on the basis that they would not carry the same evidentiary weight as sworn valuations. In summary, these appraisals attributed the following values:

100 Of course, these valuations are only relevant if I were to find that these properties formed part of the asset pool for consideration.

101 Stephen Grech swore a further affidavit on 9 April 2014 concerning the valuations of the five properties. He deposed as to the steps he had taken to comply with my orders of 25 March 2014 regarding valuation evidence. He deposed that he decided to only obtain sworn valuations for the Altona property and the Sanctuary Lakes property, for financial reasons. He exhibited the documents he provided to Mr De Gilio, the valuer who gave evidence at trial. He also obtained market appraisals for the other three properties.

102 In his email to Mr De Gilio dated 4 April 2014, Stephen Grech gave the following instructions regarding the Sanctuary Lakes property and the Altona property:

• Certificate of Occupancy (CFO) issued around November 2007
• The CFO still needs to be submitted to the Sanctuary Lakes Architectural Review Committee (ARC) See the Homeowner Code attached
• Plans for a driveway still need to be designed and submitted to ARC
• Landscaping plans for front and back need to be designed and submitted to ARC
• Security system needs to be purchased and installed. See code attached
• Defects/repairs on the house are as following:
  • Full kitchen refit
  • Full bathroom refit
  • All flooring in bedrooms needs to be removed and replaced
  • There is no insulation in the ceiling
  • Built in robes need to be ordered and installed
  • Eves (sic) need to be painted
  • A hot water system will need to be purchased and installed
  • There are two small reverse cycle heating and cooling units in the living area but they need to be fully installed and purged. Because they have not been used in 7 years I have a feeling they may not work and they are no longer under warranty. They are a cheap brand called CHUNLAN. There is no other heating or cooling in the house.
  • All the switches and GPOs need to be purchased and fitted off
  • There are no light fittings
  • There are no window furnishings
  • The laundry needs to be completed
• From my discussions with three local Real Estate Agents the dwelling is not doing the land or site justice. It only has three bedrooms, a study, a laundry and one very large living area.

• I have attached the plans for the house at Queen Street. It was built around 1980 and hasn't had much done to it since then apart from the addition of a ensuite to the master bedroom in 1995. The property needs a major overhaul
• There is no insulation in the ceiling
• There is no central heating or cooling
• The kitchen is original as are the two bathrooms
• The window furnishings are old and not consistent throughout the house
• The carpet in the bedrooms will need to be changed
• The tiled floor in the living and dining area will need to be replaced as it is original
• The roof tiles will all need to be replaced
• The landscaping at the front of the property will need to be removed so you can get access to the front garages
• The landscaping at the back will need a total overhaul as it is not neat or tidy
• It is located in front of a round-about
• The main driveway is cracking and will need to be redone
• The front gate and side gates are old and broken and will need to be replaced.
• Basically the entire house needs to be renovated. The house is very solid and double skin brick including the internal walls. This will also make it more expensive to open up the house if an open plan design is to be adopted or used.

103 Stephen Grech exhibited to his affidavit market appraisals for the Speakmen Street, Errol Street, and Ballarat Road properties, which provided the following range of estimates:

104 As can be seen from the above, there is quite a large discrepancy between the appraisals obtained by Ms Deak-Fabrikant and those obtained by Stephen Grech. If it were necessary for me to have made a finding about the appraisals, I would prefer the appraisals obtained by Stephen Grech as being more reliable, because as the registered proprietor of those properties, he would be in a better position to provide an agent with accurate information regarding the size and condition of the properties. Ms Deak-Fabrikant's own evidence is that she conducted external visual inspections of the Errol Street property in 2010 and 2013, and does not depose to ever having visited the Ballarat Road property. Even on her own evidence, she would have visited the Speakmen Street property no later than 2007.

105 As is common in proceedings of this nature, the parties relied upon affidavit evidence in support of their contentions in the proceeding. The bulk of the affidavits relied upon by Ms Deak-Fabrikant were filed in the latter part of 2013.

106 Ms DeakFabrikant swore affidavits on 1 March 2013, 7 October 2013, 23 June 2014, and 23 September 2014. A substantial part of the evidence given by Ms DeakFabrikant in her affidavit of 7 October 2013 ('primary affidavit') is summarised in the narrative provided in the opening section of these reasons, and I will not repeat that summary here.

107 In addition to the matters summarised in paragraphs 7 to 22 of these reasons, Ms DeakFabrikant deposed to the following matters in her primary affidavit:

(a) her family situation at the time she met Paul Grech;

(b) gifts and cards given to her by Paul Grech over the years, including an art book and a card given by him to her on her birthday in August 1992;

(c) her direct financial contributions and Paul Grech's direct financial contributions to the renovations of the Altona property between 1991 and the end of 1993;

(d) she helped Paul Grech with his negotiations with Gail Grech after he dismissed his lawyers, saving Paul Grech financial loss and time associated with protracted legal proceedings and contributing to the acquisition of the Altona property and another property acquired as a result of the property settlement;

(e) the financial arrangements within the family;

(f) a conversation she had with Stephen Grech in 1992 about his reasons for moving to live with his father, in which he was derogatory towards his parents and siblings;

(g) Stephen's friendship with and travels with her son Alex;

(h) a visit by her and Paul Grech to the Speakmen Street property in October 2003, when Stephen and Jelvie showed her their home and all of the work that Paul Grech had done in the house and garden;

(i) she and Paul were the first family members to rush to the hospital when Stephen and Jelvie Grech's son Noah was born in June 2006;

(j) how Paul Grech's rejecting attitude towards his disabled children caused conflict between her and Paul;

(k) further details regarding the close relationship between Paul and Stephen Grech and members of her family, including her parents, her children, and her brothers and her brothers' families;

(l) further details regarding their extended holiday in 1996, the meeting of members of Paul's extended families in Malta, and the gifts they purchased each other;

(m) visits by her and Paul to her daughter Stella in Perth in 1995 and 2000;

(n) more detail about her contributions to landscaping and maintaining the garden at the Altona property, and caring for their many beloved pets;

(o) the deterioration of their relationship in 2007, the arguments they were having about Paul's failure to complete the home at the Sanctuary Lakes property because of his plans to renovate the Errol Street property and requests for assistance from Stephen Grech, and her concerns for his health;

(p) further details of the events of 28 September 2008 and the subsequent days and months, and the injuries Paul Grech inflicted upon her and their consequences. She deposed that in the early morning of 28 September 2008 she and Paul were in the back yard of the Altona property where she was watering the garden when Paul asked her where she wanted him to spread some mulch. He disagreed with her response and started shouting at her. He grabbed her upper left arm with both hands and started pulling her from side to side. After freeing herself, she went into the house and called the police, following which Paul left, and did not return until the evening. Shortly after, the police attended and arrested him. He returned at 11.00 pm in the presence of Stephen Grech and the police to collect some belongings; and

(q) in the following days, Stephen Grech approached the Altona property several times displaying intimidating and offensive behaviour and making death threats against her and her pets and demanding that she get out of his house.

108 Ms DeakFabrikant's affidavit of 1 March 2013 was sworn in support of her application that the question of whether she and Paul Grech were in a domestic relationship between 1991 and 2008 be determined by the Court as a preliminary question. It traversed substantially the same matters as the primary affidavit.

109 Ms DeakFabrikant's affidavit of 23 June 2014 was sworn in support of her application to file and serve her further amended counterclaim, and her application to strike out those parts of Paul Grech's affidavit that referred to Dr Kaplan's records. She deposed that at the time of filing her amended counterclaim in October 2009, the house at the Sanctuary Lakes property was new, completed, and had a certificate of occupancy. She deposed that since that time hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages has been inflicted upon the Sanctuary Lakes property, and upon inspection in June 2013 it 'looked abandoned, totally neglected, and completely run down'. She relied upon an observation in the report prepared by the valuer engaged by Stephen Grech, Mr De Gilio, in April 2014 where he stated that 'the overall conditions of the home is poor and would require significant capital expenditure to bring it up to a suitable level of habitation.' Ms DeakFabrikant also referred to an inspection she carried out of the Errol Street property in March 2013 which 'had the appearance of one not occupied for considerable time and showed evidence of gross neglect', and described it as a 'kind of junk yard'.

110 Ms DeakFabrikant's affidavit of 23 September 2014 was concerned with the issue of the admissibility of Dr Kaplan's records, and her allegations that these documents had been illegally obtained by Paul Grech.

111 The primary affidavit annexed nearly two hundred exhibits. I acceded to Ms DeakFabrikant's request that she have an opportunity to describe and comment upon these exhibits during the course of her reexamination. The exhibits included large numbers of greeting cards, family photographs, DVDs which included compilations of footage of various family events, bank statements and other correspondence in the name of Paul Grech and Stephen Grech, receipts for household items and holiday travel, some medical records for Paul Grech, and some contracts of sale of land and transfers of land. Much of this material was directed to establish that Ms DeakFabrikant and Paul Grech were in a long term domestic relationship, that they were recognised by their families and friends as a couple, and that they socialised regularly and happily with family and friends.

112 The motivation to adduce such detailed evidence regarding the nature of the relationship was no doubt in part due to Paul Grech's refusal to concede, at least until the filing and serving of his affidavit evidence in March 2014, that he and Ms DeakFabrikant were in a domestic relationship at all. In his defence to counterclaim dated 16 June 2009, in response to Ms DeakFabrikant's allegation that they were in a domestic relationship within the meaning of the Act between 'about 1991 to September 2008', Paul Grech stated:

Save that he says that the plaintiff by counterclaim ... and he resided as habitants of the premises situate at and known as 178 Queen Street, Altona from time to time between 1992 and September 2008, he otherwise denies each and every allegation made in paragraph 1 thereof.

113 Further, on 14 January 2013, the then solicitors for Ms DeakFabrikant served upon each of the Grech parties a Notice to Admit with respect to the following:

Between 1991 and September 2008 the Third Defendant by counterclaim lived together with Larissa Deak-Fabrikant, the Plaintiff by Counterclaim and the First Defendant, in a de facto relationship which was a domestic relationship within the meaning of the Relationships Act 2008.

114 Each of the other parties filed Notices of Dispute with respect to this Notice to Admit. Of course, the commencement date of the relationship and the status of the relationship between 1991 and 1994 remain in dispute between the parties. However, an earlier concession on the part of Paul Grech that there was a long term domestic relationship between him and Ms Deak-Fabrikant, and an application to amend his defence to counterclaim to that effect may well have saved some time at trial, particularly the time spent by Ms DeakFabrikant in 'reexamination'.

115 Ms DeakFabrikant was crossexamined by counsel for Paul Grech and Stephen and Jelvie Grech for some three days. It was a stormy affair, and difficult for all concerned. There were frequent arguments between Ms DeakFabrikant and counsel for Paul Grech, with Ms DeakFabrikant getting particularly upset when counsel challenged the truthfulness of her evidence (as he was entitled to do), and during crossexamination upon the matters recorded in Dr Kaplan's records. Further, the crossexamination was extensive. In preparing an aide memoire for the purposes of ensuring Ms DeakFabrikant addressed all of the topics raised in crossexamination in her reexamination, I identified 107 'topics' covered during the course of crossexamination, excluding that part of the crossexamination which concerned Dr Kaplan's records.

116 Ms DeakFabrikant was crossexamined about when she met Paul Grech and what legal process he was going through at the time. She gave evidence that Paul Grech was at the Family Court registry to make enquiries about applying for custody of Stephen Grech. She believed that this was in April or May of 1991. She was asked about Paul Grech's proposal of marriage: when it occurred, where it occurred, how she responded, and what happened next. Despite being quite certain that this conversation took place in around August of 1991 she could not recall the occasion that it occurred, or the venue, although it may have been possibly at the Altona Meadows property. She could not recall exactly how long it took her to consider the proposal, or when or where she conveyed her acceptance of the proposal. She did not receive a ring at the time but did so later. She gave evidence that she moved to the Altona property with Paul Grech in about August or September 1991.

117 Ms Deak-Fabrikant gave evidence that between their first meeting in April/May 1991 and her moving to the Altona property in August/September 1991, Paul Grech visited her very often, nearly every day. She did not discuss his family law problems with him until after she moved to the Altona property. She visited Paul Grech at the Altona Meadows property a few times, and stayed overnight. It had an open fire and very little furniture.

118 Ms Deak-Fabrikant gave evidence that there was some discussions between her and Paul Grech about marriage after she moved to the Altona property: first, shortly after she moved in, regarding whether they would be able to marry in a church or not because of the Catholic Church's attitude to divorce, and later, when they agreed to postpone marriage after her father was diagnosed with a terminal illness in late 1992 or early 1993. There were further discussions about marriage when they purchased the Sanctuary Lakes property in 1999. She said that the nature of the discussion was that when the house at the Sanctuary Lakes property was finished, they would register their relationship as a marriage 'on the papers', they would move to Sanctuary Lakes, and her name would be added to the title of their matrimonial home. After this, she went to see a lawyer about having her name put on the title of the Sanctuary Lakes property. She wanted this to occur because she would feel more secure.

119 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that Paul Grech's failure to put her name on the title of the Sanctuary Lakes property became an issue towards the end of their relationship. She told Paul Grech that she would not move to Sanctuary Lakes until he fulfilled his promise to her. She also gave evidence that this was not the first occasion upon which Paul Grech promised to put her name on the title. When they purchased the Errol Street property in his name, he told her that 'I hold a fifty per cent interest in this property so you have nothing to worry' and later, in regard to the Altona property, he said 'You have nothing to worry because I hold in trust your interest in this property'.

120 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that when Paul Grech started his business in mid1993, they had a discussion to the effect that 'everything that we earn together, we'll keep together and we'll build our resources together'. Prior to that time he was not working, but receiving social security benefits as a single parent. They discussed who was responsible for meeting which expenses, and they agreed to discuss together what they did with their savings.

121 Ms DeakFabrikant rejected the contention that she was not living at the Altona property between mid1993 and early 1994, but rather that she had moved to the Elsternwick property and was engaged in caring for her dying father. She said her father was in quite good condition despite his diagnosis with a terminal illness, and was not being actively nursed by anyone until his admission to hospital ten days before he died.

122 Ms DeakFabrikant was questioned about her role in assisting Paul Grech in the settlement of his family law proceeding. She believed she assisted him by encouraging him to achieve a mediated settlement, rather than going to court. She did not accept that Paul Grech was represented by solicitors when he settled his family law proceeding.

123 Ms DeakFabrikant was questioned about the renovations carried out by Paul Grech at the Altona property between 1991 and 1993. She said that after they moved to the Altona property they spent a couple of months cleaning, moving rubbish, carrying out minor repairs, and attending to the garden. She was involved in planning the renovations to the Altona property to refurbish the master bedroom and add an en suite bathroom, which she said were carried out in 1993. She rejected the contention that any renovations were in fact carried out in 1995. She did concede that some of the expenditure referred to by her in her primary affidavit as being connected with the renovations was in fact made over the course of the relationship, and not solely as a contribution to the renovations. She could not provide receipts for all of the purchases made by her which were said to form part of her financial contributions to the Altona property.

124 Ms DeakFabrikant was questioned quite closely about a receipt from Brash's exhibited to her primary affidavit.[10] The receipt is for the purchase of a portable hi-fi system costing $139. The receipt is dated 14 September 1991, and the words 'DeakFabrikant' and '178 Queen Street Altona' have been written on the receipt, in what looks like Ms DeakFabrikant's handwriting, in a different coloured pen than that used to write out the particulars of sale and the date. It was put to Ms DeakFabrikant that she had inserted her name and address for the purpose of concocting evidence to support her contention that she was living at the Altona property in 1991. She denied this, and gave evidence that the sales assistant asked her to complete these details at the store.

125 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that she paid for all of the landscaping in the front and back yard of the Altona property from her own funds, and paid for materials for Paul Grech to build a gazebo, a fish pond, an aviary and an enclosure for the cats. She paid for these materials in cash she withdrew from one of her savings accounts. She had accounts with the Commonwealth Bank, funds invested with a firm of solicitors, and she had lent $10,000 to her brother Yanosh in about 1990 or 1991, which he repaid over about a ten year period. She believed at the time she met Paul Grech she had about $20,000 in savings with the Commonwealth Bank and about $8,000 invested with the solicitors, as well as the loan to Yanosh. She believes she moved the funds from the solicitors some time after 2000 and put them in a Westpac term deposit. She could not recall how much money she had in her Commonwealth savings account when she transferred her accounts to Westpac. She used her savings to pay for landscaping and gardening, and to purchase furniture from Alex in 2007.

126 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that she kept a lot of cash on hand from her casual employment and funds raised from garage sales. She gave evidence that she did not have any banking records because when Paul Grech moved out, he took five drawers from a filing cabinet, which is where her banking records were kept. She did not have any records showing income earned by her as a nurse in 1992. She rejected the contention that she had not worked as a nurse since 1990. She also rejected the contention that when she returned to the Altona property in the second half of 1994 Paul Grech required that they split the bills, and that otherwise they kept their finances separate. She agreed that they did not have a joint bank account.

127 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that she was not aware of any investments that Paul Grech had or of any loans he had made to family members. She believed that it would be impossible that Paul Grech had funds that she did not know about. Paul Grech had told her that he had lost everything in the collapse of the Pyramid Building Society.

128 Ms DeakFabrikant was questioned about her relationship with Stephen Grech and her role in his life. She gave evidence that she was like his mother, and loved him very much, and he loved her too. She denied that her relationship with Stephen 'went bad'. She maintained her assertion that her son Alex tutored Stephen in maths in 1992, free of charge. She denied that there was a falling out between her and Stephen in 1997. She denied that she refused to let Stephen eat food from the refrigerator she purchased, and she denied that Stephen lived with his grandmother in Coburg in 1994 and 1995. She denied that Stephen assaulted her in about June 1997.

129 Counsel for Paul Grech took Ms DeakFabrikant to a number of documents which were generated during the course of the Family Court proceeding between Paul Grech and Gail Grech. She rejected the contention that the contents of these documents accurately reflected where Paul Grech was living at the time those documents came into existence, what work he was doing, by which solicitors he was represented, and what negotiations were underway when these documents came into existence in the first half of 1992. Each of the court documents refers to Paul Grech's address as being the Altona Meadows property.

130 Ms DeakFabrikant denied that she and Paul Grech had separate bedrooms, and that she kept her documents in her bedroom, notwithstanding her reference in a police statement made by her on 24 October 2008 that they had lived in separate bedrooms for some eighteen months. In a later statement, she corrected this to fourteen months. However, she maintained her denial, save to say that they slept apart from time to time.

131 Ms DeakFabrikant rejected the contention that Paul Grech did most of the cooking in the household, and said that she did most of the cooking, and when they entertained they cooked together. She gave evidence that she took phone messages from clients or potential clients of Paul Grech, helped him load and unload materials, washed his overalls, and helped him clean the garage.

132 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that she paid all of the household bills because they were in her name. She conceded that she did not have any documents evidencing payment of Stephen Grech's school fees, or Stephen Grech's other living expenses. It became clear during the course of crossexamination that her claims to have made a financial contribution to Stephen Grech's living expenses was not based upon her paying for his expenses directly, but rather based upon the fact that any money earned or received by her and Paul Grech belonged to both of them.

133 Ms DeakFabrikant rejected the contention that Stephen Grech worked at various parttime jobs, and with Paul Grech, while he was a student. She knew that he never worked because he was her child and living under her roof. She rejected the contention that funds held in certain bank accounts were funds belonging to Stephen Grech, which he used to purchase the Errol Street property, saying those funds were used by Paul Grech to fund their overseas trip.

134 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that Stephen Grech left the Altona property because he did not want to contribute financially to the household, not because of his bad relationship with her.

135 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that she and Paul Grech described their overseas trip in 1996 as a honeymoon. Before they departed, she and Paul Grech got engaged, and her family was there when Paul Grech presented her with an engagement ring. Later, she gave evidence that Paul gave it to her at the Altona property, and she showed her family later. She gave evidence that they discussed being buried together in the same cemetery where her parents were buried together when they visited there on Father's Day in 2008, just before the separation.

136 Ms DeakFabrikant conceded that she did not have a bank statement or any other documentary evidence that Paul Grech paid for the purchase of the Errol Street property, saying that it was purchased with cash, and that the renovations he carried out on the property, which cost $20,000, were paid for in cash. She knew this because Paul Grech told her. She asserted that all funds in accounts which were in Paul Grech's children's names were really their parents' funds, deposited there to avoid tax.

137 Ms DeakFabrikant was asked some questions about the purchase of the Sanctuary Lakes property. She agreed that the funds for the purchase of the Sanctuary Lakes property came from Paul Grech's bank account, and no funds came from her bank accounts. She stated ' ... our money was our money, doesn't matter which account it came from.'

138 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that the Sanctuary Lakes property was purchased after she and Paul Grech were out on a drive and decided to have a look at the new estate. They liked it, and decided it was another good opportunity. She never heard Paul and Stephen Grech discuss the purchase of an investment property, or about Paul Grech being the underbidder on two properties in Yarraville. She said that Stephen Grech was not involved with this purchase because he was on holidays in Vietnam (although she later withdrew this evidence). She attended the Sanctuary Lakes sales office with Paul Grech to sign the sales contract for the Sanctuary Lakes property. She rejected the contention that Paul Grech used funds repaid to him by Joe Grech to purchase the Sanctuary Lakes property, because Paul Grech did not give any money to Joe Grech.

139 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that Paul Grech promised her that he would put her name on the title to the Sanctuary Lakes property. The following extract from the transcript records an interruption to the crossexamination by me in relation to this issue:[11]

HER HONOUR: Sorry, before you do that, I have a question just about paragraph 118. (To witness) You say: 'At the same times he told me again that I had nothing to worry about', what were you worried about?---I was a bit concerned that the second property had been purchased without putting my name in, so I just say, 'Well, it's a little bit, you know, just worry me' and this is how he calm, he say, 'Well, you have, darling, nothing to worry because we going to build our new house, we will retire there.' We even was planning to purchase the property in Malta. We was in love with Malta and he say we will share like Winter - we will purchase the apartment seaside in Malta, we go there and rest. So he just sort of reassuring me that I have nothing to worry, it just normal things.

So you would express, from time to time, your concerns to him about not having legal recognition of your share in the properties?---After - after he purchase the second, I sort of say, 'Well, look, it's a second property and I'm a little bit concerned.' He say, 'No' - well, he even tell me that - not before - he say, 'Well, we can even do' and I remember very clearly that I went to Mr Hutchinson, which I was a casual work - it's a lawyer in Altona - and I ask him what you need to add it - like Paul wanted to add it my name. He said, 'Just bring me the title', and when I come back home and I say, 'Peter will do this job', he tell me, 'Oh, at the moment I still didn't receive the title in this, like once this - nothing to worry, it's okay', but after this - I don't remember what - maybe he just forgotten, but I absolutely clear remember that I did went to Mr Peter Hutchinson and we did have this - I ask him and he - he knew about this, he knew Paul tell him that he put - it's no problem, just bring the title, and this is how it is, but like it was no doubt that it's going to happen.

140 Ms DeakFabrikant rejected the contention that the statement by her in her affidavit that she had to provide additional financial support for the household between 1998 and 2005 because of the work Paul Grech was doing at Sanctuary Lakes was incorrect. However, she also agreed that Paul Grech did not commence construction at Sanctuary Lakes until 2004, but she said that he was doing a lot of preparatory work prior to that time. Ultimately she said that her statement that she had to fund a large portion of the household expenses from her income from her pension, and her earnings as a casual cleaner was connected to Paul Grech's involvement in building Sanctuary Lakes was not correct.

141 Ms DeakFabrikant conceded that she had no documentary proof that she paid for Stephen Grech's car in 2001, or gave Paul Grech the $5,000 she inherited from her mother in 2005.

142 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that Paul Grech told her that he had loaned $38,000 to Stephen and Jelvie to assist them with the purchase of the Speakmen Street property. She rejected the contention that Paul Grech gave Stephen and Jelvie a gift on their engagement and wedding. She denied that Stephen and Jelvie got engaged. She agreed that she did not attend Stephen and Jelvie's wedding, as shown by the following extract from the transcript.[12]

COUNSEL: Yes. And you knew that was because your relationship with Stephen was so bad he didn't want you at his wedding?---Well, obviously.

But you knew that Paul went?---Yes, I knew.

Yes?---And that cause a lot of - this was manipulated by Stephen Grech to cause - he knew that my son going to be the best friend, he knew that Paul will be in agony to decide what to do between choice either not to go or to go and that will cause a problem. So he manipulated and calculated already in 2003 the trick. He knew what it will bring the problem to pull Paul between to go on his son wedding or betray me and leave me behind and make me very unhappy. He manipulate this because my son was best man. So this was done in the purpose because he's already planning to put us apart. This is the explanation. He was manipulating this for a long time.

Is Stephen the reason that you and Paul have separated, is it? Is that what you're telling the court?---He put a lot of effort - - -

Is Stephen - - - ?---To break us - - -

- - - the reason you and Paul have separated?--- Is that right?---He have a lot to answer for it.

143 Ms DeakFabrikant described the evidence in Stephen and Jelvie Grech's affidavits regarding the money they had saved, the money they had been given, and how they paid for and paid off the Speakmen Street property as an 'absolute fabrication'. She gave evidence that she believed that approximately $350,000 went from Paul to Stephen and Jelvie in relation to the Speakmen Street property, and she believed that would be proved by an analysis of Paul and Stephen Grech's bank statements. Some of those funds were also borrowed by Paul Grech from other people, or came from cash earned in his business. She said that Paul Grech's books of accounts showed that he earned about $100,000 per year. She believes the only explanation for the cash deposits into Stephen and Jelvie Grech's accounts was that they came from Paul Grech. She gave evidence that she had Paul Grech's books of account, but they were kept safely at a friend's house.[13]

144 Ms DeakFabrikant contended in her evidence that she was unaware that Paul Grech had lent Joe Grech money. When taken to the extract from Paul Grech's notebook referring to the making and repayment of loans, she questioned their authenticity. She also challenged the veracity of the affidavit sworn by Jelvie Grech's mother, Elysabeth Pangalila, saying that her evidence regarding her assistance to Stephen and Jelvie Grech was fabricated, and she did not accept that Stephen and Jelvie Grech had had other sources of financial assistance to repay their mortgage apart from Paul Grech. She conceded that she was guessing that Paul Grech provided Stephen and Jelvie Grech with assistance to fund the stamp duty and other costs associated with the purchase of the Ballarat Road property, but she knew the equity in the Errol Street property was used to secure the loan raised to fund the purchase of the Ballarat Road property.

145 Ms DeakFabrikant denied Paul Grech's allegation that Ms DeakFabrikant assaulted him and not the other way around on 28 September 2008, and that when Paul Grech returned to the Altona property two days later with the police she tried to assault him again. She gave evidence that Paul Grech took two jars of cash from a hiding place in the kitchen on that occasion. It was on a later visit on 5 October 2008 that Paul Grech took the five drawers from a cabinet in the kitchen.

146 Ms DeakFabrikant was asked about the impact of the injuries said to have been suffered by her as a result of the alleged assault. She gave evidence that she needed assistance with gardening and vacuuming. She keeps the house clean with the assistance of neighbours and family members, and sometimes her children send her money to pay for certain jobs. She would not name the neighbours, as they had told her they feared repercussions if they came to Court to give evidence. She gave evidence of what she paid and continues to pay for a gardener. She gave evidence that through an award of crimes compensation she would receive $8,000 to fund an operation upon her shoulder, but she has decided not to have the operation owing to the risks associated with surgery.

147 It was put to Ms DeakFabrikant that, based upon the amount of her savings at the commencement of her relationship with Paul Grech and at the end, she spent approximately $24,000 of her savings on the Altona property. Further, if her evidence that she paid all of the household bills is accepted, she would have paid approximately $21,000 in respect of those bills, the earliest of which was dated May 1994.

148 Ms DeakFabrikant was cross-examined extensively on Dr Kaplan's records, including letters on Dr Kaplan's file from Dr Slonim to Dr Kaplan and vice versa. The records upon which Ms DeakFabrikant was cross-examined covered the period from 1993 to 2003. The original referral letter from Dr Slonim to Dr Kaplan dated 11 May 1993 refers to the following reasons for referral:

Depressive symptoms ... fought divorce, recent separation from de facto relationship, estranged from children, angry at lawyers.

149 On 24 June 1993, Dr Kaplan wrote to Dr Slonim as follows:

Thank you for referring this unfortunate 45 year old woman. As you know she has experienced a series of traumas over the years. She was married to a violent, dominating man and after their marriage ended he married her 21 year old niece. The court battle over their property settlement left her penniless. Her son was traumatized the marital (sic), dropped out of Dentistry School and became alienated from her. Two years ago she brought her parents out from Russia and both have since developed serious illnesses and rely upon her for support. She herself has suffered from some illness with asthma and renal problems and underwent surgery to her glossopharyngeal nerve apparently for a neuralgia problem. To compound her problems she has been experiencing difficulty in a new relationship she developed a year ago which now seems to be foundering.

150 Ms DeakFabrikant was taken to a number of references in Dr Kaplan's notes taken between 1993 and 1995, including references to:

(a) the de facto relationship commencing in June 1992;

(b) Ms DeakFabrikant leaving the de facto relationship in April 1993 because she felt it had no future;

(c) her difficulty in adjusting to life in a small flat;

(e) her ambivalence about the on-off nature of the relationship;

(f) the burden of responsibility for caring for Ms DeakFabrikant's father was resting on her shoulders;

(g) her ceasing work at Epworth three years ago (as at 1993);

(h) she had known Paul Grech for three and a half years, lived with him for one year (as at July 1995); and

(i) she moved back to the Altona property in May 1994.

151 Dr Kaplan wrote again to Dr Slonim on 17 March 1994 in the following terms:

Mrs Deak-Fabrikant has continued to see me intermittently over recent months. During this time she has been helping nurse her father who died after a prolonged illness a fortnight ago. Mrs Deak-Fabrikant most recently has begun to examine the way in which she has allowed others to exploit her over the years, and the destructive effects this has had upon her. She has encouraged this behaviour by being compliant and by selflessly sacrificing her needs for the needs of others, and making no demands of the people around her.

152 Ms DeakFabrikant was taken to Dr Kaplan's notes made in February 1997, which include references to:

(a) her traveling to Israel and Europe with Paul Grech;

(b) how Alex had married and moved in with her and Paul, which was very difficult;

(c) Stephen Grech being a student who worked part-time; and

(d) she had a good relationship with Stephen Grech which is now deteriorating.

153 Dr Kaplan's notes in June 1997 refer to Ms DeakFabrikant's relationship with Stephen Grech being at crisis point, that he had physically attacked her and she felt compelled to call the police, and that he wanted her to leave the Altona property.

154 Larissa Deak-Fabrikant denied that Stephen ever assaulted her, or that she reported the assault to a doctor at the Altona Medical Centre in June 1997.

155 Dr Slonim wrote another referral letter to Dr Kaplan on 18 September 1998, referring to 'problems with current relationship and de facto's children'.

156 Ms DeakFabrikant was taken to the following references in Dr Kaplan's records from September 1998:

(a) Ms DeakFabrikant wants to deal with her problems with relationships;

(b) she feels she has to leave because relationship alienated;

(c) her de facto's two sons now live with them, the second son is mildly handicapped;

(d) his younger son has made peace with her, he has been polite but not close;

(e) her son and daughter-in-law moved out four months ago, she encouraged them to leave, they had problems with their relationship;

(f) problems: failure to be assertive, choice of partners.

157 On 28 September 1998, Dr Kaplan wrote to Dr Slonim in the following terms:

Mrs Deak-Fabrikant recently returned to see me and expressed a wish to examine her pattern of becoming involved in unsatisfactory relationships. She has come to the conclusion that her behaviour has contributed to the difficulties she has experienced and she now wishes to gain an understanding of a change in this behaviour. A desire to seek help for this problem at this time was triggered by her deteriorating relationship with her de facto husband, and she now believes that relationship has no future.

Mrs Deak-Fabrikant has indeed had a pattern of becoming involved in relationships where she has been exploited or abused in one way or another. She has tended to be attracted to men (and friends) who have exploited or abused her and she has also fostered this behaviour in others by failing to assert herself. Her toleration of this abuse has represented an unconscious collusion in promoting and maintaining this style of relationship.

Hopefully, Mrs Deak-Fabrikant will be able to productively explore these issues in psychotherapy.

158 It was put to Ms DeakFabrikant that the matters recorded in Dr Kaplan's records, including the letter above, was inconsistent with her contention that Paul Grech bought the Errol Street property in 1998 as a shared investment and promised to hold it on trust for her, given her concerns at the time about the quality of the relationship between her and Paul Grech, and her concerns about her lack of financial security.

159 Ms DeakFabrikant was taken to Dr Kaplan's notes made in June 2001, August 2001, and September 2001, and in particular, the following references:

(a) Ms DeakFabrikant feels that Paul Grech is exploiting her. He is wealthy but will not marry her or support her. She still lives off the pension; and

(b) her coping with the relationship better, however, the relationship is still poor, and she only stays because she cannot afford to leave and is attached to the house where she has lived for ten years.

160 On 23 July 2001, Dr Kaplan wrote to Dr Slonim in the following terms:

Thank you for referring Larissa again.

Larissa, on this occasion, was seeking assistance in helping her deal with her long-standing unhappy domestic situation. She has continued to live in an unsatisfactory relationship with her partner. She has felt increasingly resentful about what she regards as her partner's exploitation of her. She describes him as a prosperous businessman who, she believes, uses her effectively as a convenient housekeeper. He refuses to make any greater commitment to her and she feels imprisoned as her finances do not allow her to leave him and live independently.

Larissa's exploitation by her partner appears to be a continuation of the pattern of her past relationships and the relationships within her family. She has some insight into these problems and I will encourage her to explore these problems in the coming weeks and hopefully become more assertive in her relationship.

161 Finally, Ms DeakFabrikant was taken to a letter of Dr Kaplan written to Dr Slonim on 31 March 2003, as follows:

Thank you for referring Larissa again.

Larissa reported that she had been depressed, however, in the period between the time that you referred her and her consultation with me, her depression has subsided and almost resolved. She seemed to attribute this improvement to having discontinued HRT, although it was unclear from her description whether, in fact, this was the reason for the improvement in her condition.

Larissa remains in an unsatisfactory relationship. She describes her partner as being unpredictable and uncommunicative, and there is little communication between them. The relationship, from his point of view, appears to be one convenience and seems to be emotionally sterile.

Larissa claims that she has come to an accommodation regarding her relationship and her general situation, although I wonder whether her depression was related to these problems. I am happy to see her in a supportive role and have left her with the option of making further appointments.

162 Ms DeakFabrikant's responses to counsel's questions regarding Dr Kaplan's records reflected her view that their disclosure and admission into evidence was unjust. She either denied the statements were correct, or was nonresponsive. At times she denied their authenticity, and dismissed the communications between Dr Kaplan and Dr Slonim as 'just doctors gossiping'. In the end, she submitted that what she said were erroneous statements to Dr Kaplan could have been affected by her suffering from the symptoms of menopause.

163 Ms DeakFabrikant was also cross-examined by Stephen Grech. At first she was asked about the quality of the relationship and their communication. She gave evidence that they had a very good relationship, especially when Stephen was younger. Stephen was very polite and helpful, and interested in her culture and life in another country. They talked a lot, and he gave her cards and gifts. They had less of an attachment as he grew older, but the relationship went reasonably well until he moved out of the Altona property in 2001. They resumed their friendship in 2003 when she invited Stephen and Jelvie to dinner for Alex's birthday. After that they had a reasonable relationship, and she gave him a lot of baby goods that she had kept from when Paul's first grandson was a baby. Stephen called her when Noah was born. They did not have any communication after Paul's birthday celebration in 2007.

164 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that she was very upset about not being invited to Stephen and Jelvie's wedding, but she put it behind her. She did not consider they had a falling out in 2001, just very little communication afterwards.

165 Ms DeakFabrikant denied that she had ever discussed anything about her personal finances or life with her exhusband with Stephen Grech. She denied that she was bankrupt or that she told Stephen Grech she was bankrupt, and that it would be ridiculous if a mature person was to discuss such issues with a thirteen year old boy. She gave evidence about the conversation she had with Stephen Grech in 2001 regarding him contributing to household expenses. There was some discussion about whether the birthday dinner for Alex was in 2003, 2005, or 2006. Stephen Grech put to Ms DeakFabrikant that he attended no functions including any member of her family, or any of Ms DeakFabrikant's friends, between 1997 and 2008.

166 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that in her view, Stephen Grech did not have a close relationship with his father, and that they disagreed about Stephen's future education and employment. She disagreed with the contention that she had an unhappy relationship with Paul Grech, stating that Stephen and other members of her family would only know what they were told about her personal life.

167 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that Paul Grech did not tell her that he was holding the Altona property on trust for Stephen. She denied telling Stephen that she was disappointed that Paul Grech would not make a commitment to her. She denied the alleged incident in 1997 where she told Stephen that he had no rights and if he did not like her rules he could leave. She denied refusing to allow him to eat food from the refrigerator, or threatening him with the police. She denied that he left in 2001 after she was rude to Jelvie, and she denied that she resented the relationship Stephen had with his father.

168 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that Stephen Grech did call her when his first son was born, and that she did visit at the hospital. There were no photographs of her at the visit because Stephen Grech removed them from the Altona property. She rejected Stephen Grech's contentions that she had no evidence to show that he and Jelvie had insufficient funds to purchase the Speakmen Street property or that Paul Grech lent them funds to pay for it, or evidence that he and Jelvie did not have the capacity to pay a large amount of their loan in the time that they did, or evidence that Paul Grech made mortgage repayments on their behalf. Ms DeakFabrikant stated that she would rely upon the bank statements discovered by Stephen Grech to prove her contentions in that regard.

169 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that Paul Grech told her that he lent Stephen and Jelvie Grech $38,000 for the purchase of the Speakmen Street property. She stated that she would present additional evidence to the Court regarding her interest in the Errol Street property, and that the funds to purchase the Errol Street property came from her and Paul's joint finances.

170 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that the rate notices for Errol Street were sent to the Errol Street property. She denied ever seeing any of the rate notices addressed to Stephen Grech at the address of the Altona property. She did not open or check anybody else's mail, and did not recall seeing Stephen Grech opening his mail.

171 Ms DeakFabrikant rejected the contention that she and Paul Grech were experiencing some difficulties long before the Sanctuary Lakes property was transferred to Jelvie Grech. She conceded that no funds from any bank account held by her were used to fund the purchase or development of the Sanctuary Lakes property. She denied that Stephen and Paul Grech built the house at the Sanctuary Lakes property together. She gave evidence that Paul Grech promised to put her name on the title of the Sanctuary Lakes property, and that it was a retirement home, not an investment property. She denied that Paul Grech told her that everything he worked for was for his children. She said that the difficulties in the relationship between her and Paul Grech arose because of their health difficulties.

172 Ms DeakFabrikant was also crossexamined by Jelvie Grech. Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that she had a lot of photographs taken at the hospital when Jelvie's son Noah had been born, which had been placed in an album that has now disappeared. It must have been taken by either or both of Paul and Stephen Grech during a property exchange. She said she visited at Mercy Maternity in the city, or maybe 'Royal', in the private section, Alex arrived with a big bunch of flowers, and both of Jelvie's parents were there.

173 Jelvie Grech put to Ms DeakFabrikant that neither she or Stephen Grech had any relationship with her, and that she was not invited to and did not attend any significant celebrations or occasions, such as their engagement, their housewarming, their wedding, or their son's first birthday party. Ms DeakFabrikant disagreed that on the occasion of her first meeting with Jelvie in 2000 that it was clear that she looked down on Paul and Stephen Grech. She denied Jelvie Grech's contentions that in January 2001 at the Altona property Ms DeakFabrikant called her a bitch and a slut and told Stephen to 'get that slut out of my house', that this was the last straw for Stephen, and that the restoration of the relationship was a fabrication on Ms DeakFabrikant's part.

174 Later in the trial, Ms Deak-Fabrikant underwent two further periods of cross-examination with respect to new evidence and documents which emerged during the course of her re-examination. Much of this cross-examination went to issues such as the provenance of documents and issues of credit. She was cross-examined about the bank statements she produced on the twenty second day of the trial, having given evidence previously that she no longer had any bank statements, probably as a result of Paul Grech having removed them from the Altona property. She was also crossexamined about why she was unable to produce bank statements from 1992 or 1993 (the first bank statement produced was from 1994, which showed her address as the Altona property). She was questioned about some large withdrawals she made in 1995 and 1996. It was put to her that her bank statements showed that she was able to accumulate savings during the course of the relationship because Paul Grech was supporting her financially. She denied that she had purchased shares from her savings, and stated that a deposit with a reference 'Deposit Dividend Telstra Dividend' must have referred to a gift from one of her children.

175 Ms Deak-Fabrikant undertook her own re-examination over the course of several days, often interposed when other witnesses were unavailable. Her re-examination involved, among other things, a commentary upon the exhibits to her primary affidavit, including the viewing of two DVDs, submissions regarding matters raised in the affidavit of Paul, Stephen and Jelvie Grech, and her responses to the topics I identified as having been raised during the course of cross-examination.

176 Ms Deak-Fabrikant relied upon a number of photographs, cards, and letters in support of her contentions that:

(a) the relationship commenced, and she moved to the Altona property in 1991;

(b) she and Paul Grech were recognised publicly as a couple over a lengthy period of time and she and members of her family and Paul Grech and members of his family socialised and interacted together;

(c) their relationship and the relationship between her and Stephen and Paul Grech's other children was strong; and

(d) the landscaping improvements she made to the garden at the Altona property, and Paul Grech enjoying and showing pride in their garden and pets.

177 In her primary affidavit, Ms Deak-Fabrikant exhibited a number of bank statements and other correspondence in the names of Paul and Stephen Grech which were said to support the following contentions:

(a) Paul Grech lived at the Altona property in 1991;

(b) Stephen Grech could not have been in a financial position to purchase the Errol Street property in 1998, but Paul Grech did have the funds available to purchase the Errol Street property;

(c) the tenants at the Errol Street property paid rent to Paul Grech, not Stephen Grech, at least initially;

(d) she and Paul Grech paid for Stephen Grech's travels in 2000;

(e) Paul Grech, not Stephen Grech, purchased and paid for the Errol Street property;

(f) Paul Grech's renovation business was advertised as being located at the Altona property, with some advertisements referring to the home telephone number, and is now located at the Errol Street property; and

(g) substantial cash payments were made to pay down Stephen and Jelvie's mortgage over the Speakmen Street property between 2001 and 2007.

178 During the course of her re-examination, Ms Deak-Fabrikant tendered into evidence documents which had not been exhibited to her primary affidavit, or indeed discovered prior to trial. These documents included, among other things:

(a) a birthday card given by Paul Grech to her in August 1993;

(b) photographs of furniture, whitegoods, artworks and ornamental items referred to in her further and better particulars filed on 16 November 2010;

(c) a Mother's Day card said to have been given to her by Paul in 1992 (although there is a notation on the card which refers to 1999);

(d) a bundle of veterinary reports and invoices for the pets, which she gave evidence that she paid;

(e) certificates showing she completed courses in intensive care nursing and coronary care nursing in 1992, and a contract of employment with Prince Henry Hospital from 1987;

(f) a statutory declaration executed by her on 31 August 1990, in which she declared that she wished to bring her parents to Australia to reside with her at an address in Mount Waverley, and that she was employed as a nursing sister earning approximately $20,000 per year;

(g) a bundle of business and character references and 'thank you' cards, said to counter the assertions of Paul and Stephen Grech that she was 'dominant, abusive, aggressive and controlling';

(h) further letters and bank statements of Paul Grech showing his address to be the Altona property as at 1991;

(i) a bundle of bills and receipts for utilities, whitegoods and electronic goods said to have been paid by her;

(j) documents evidencing payments made by her with respect to the Altona property after September 2008; and

(k) copies of her bank statements from December 1994.

179 In addition to tendering and commenting upon documents, Ms Deak-Fabrikant gave further evidence and made submissions in reply to the affidavits relied upon by the Grech parties, and in response to matters raised in cross-examination. Much of this evidence traversed matters which had already been raised by her in her primary affidavit, or had been given in response to cross-examination, and I need not repeat that here. However, in relation to her financial contributions to the properties and the relationship, she gave evidence that as well as paying the bills for the Altona property after they were transferred into her name in 1994, she often paid bills for the Sanctuary Lakes property at Paul Grech's request. She estimated that her contributions to the household in terms of her income, savings, and possessions to be in the order of $350,000, including approximately $50,000 worth of furniture and other household goods.

180 Ms Deak-Fabrikant gave evidence that in 1992 she was not working at Epworth, but was engaged in casual shift work at hospitals in the western suburbs through a western suburbs based nursing agency. At that time Paul Grech was receiving a pension. She paid an account rendered to Paul Grech by Heather Gordon for legal work done by her.

181 As for her non-financial contributions, Ms Deak-Fabrikant gave evidence that she was present at the Family Court in June 1992, and advised him to settle with his ex-wife. At the end of the negotiations, Gail Grech's solicitor shook her hand and told her she had done a wonderful job. She encouraged Stephen Grech to get a good education, in circumstances where Paul Grech wanted him to get a trade, and she attended a long interview with the principal at Westbourne Grammar. They had a lot of shared interests, and she introduced him to literature, theatre and travel. He attended her father's eightieth birthday party in May 1993.

182 Ms Deak-Fabrikant maintained that she continued to have a good relationship with Stephen, and denied the allegations that they had a falling out in 1997. She said any arguments between them were mainly about him riding a motorbike, as she was concerned about his safety. She bought him clothes, welcomed his friends and girlfriends to the Altona property, and sought to give him the same opportunities that she gave her own children. She also did what she could for Paul Grech's other two children: indeed, Paul Grech's less favourable treatment of his two disabled children was a source of disagreement between them.

183 Ms Deak-Fabrikant gave evidence that she was present when Paul Grech signed a contract of sale for the Errol Street property, and the amendment to the particulars of sale to refer to 'Paul Grech or nominee' was not made in her presence. She believes that as at 2010, Paul Grech was running his renovation business out of the Errol Street property. She provided window furnishings for the Errol Street property, and in 2008 Paul Grech carried out a full renovation of the Errol Street property, including restumping, installation of a new kitchen and bathroom, and the erection of a colour bond fence.

184 Ms DeakFabrikant maintained her denial that Stephen and Jelvie Grech got engaged and had an engagement party in October 2000. She had never been told about it, and said that on the date of the alleged engagement party, she and Paul had just returned from a holiday in Perth, and he would not have attended such an occasion without her, or without telling her.

185 Ms DeakFabrikant gave evidence that she believed that about eighty per cent of Paul Grech's income was cash, and therefore it might be difficult to show the source of deposits to Stephen and Jelvie's mortgage as being a bank account of Paul Grech. She believes that the sum of $45,000 given by Paul Grech to Stephen Grech in 2007 was used to pay the stamp duty for the transfer of the Altona property of $39,160 a few months later in January 2008.

186 In responding directly to the matters raised by crossexamination, Ms DeakFabrikant gave the following additional evidence:

(a) she visited the Altona Meadows property on a number of occasions. This is where she met Stephen Grech. She and Paul Grech were in an intimate relationship prior to her moving to the Altona property;

(b) she and Paul Grech had plans to purchase an apartment in Malta to spend the Australian winters there: they planned to live off the rental income from the Altona and Errol Street properties;

(c) she explained why she was abusive to Paul Grech and the police when they visited late at night on 30 September 2006: she had taken medication and she was scared to death after the police threatened to break in and allowed Paul Grech to take two jars full of cash;

(d) Stephen Grech had nothing to do with the purchase of the Sanctuary Lakes property. She spoke to a solicitor at Clement Hutchinson about putting her name on the title, but Paul Grech told her there was no rush. He kept delaying finishing Sanctuary Lakes, he was busy working, and planning to renovate the Errol Street property;

(e) also after the separation she started receiving threatening phone calls from Stephen Grech, the mail disappeared, he attempted to cut the water supply, and he had been stalking her with a video camera as recently as a couple of weeks ago;

(f) she was able to explain the reference to the Hotham Street address in Dr Kaplan's notes: after she left Mount Waverley, and before she moved to the Richmond apartment, she stayed for several weeks with a friend at an apartment near Ripponlea, during which time she must have provided that address to Dr Slonim, which he used when he referred her to Dr Kaplan because of her menopausal symptoms;

(g) she disputed the references in Dr Kaplan's records: he never made notes in her presence. Her exhusband was not a violent man, and she got $80,000 from the sale of their house. She was agitated during her crossexamination because she was under pressure, she could not read the handwriting, and she had not accepted their authenticity at that time;

(h) she noted that she did not see Dr Kaplan for a number of years, so she must not have been unhappy. She noted the reference in Dr Kaplan's records to her and Stephen Grech having a good relationship. She was never estranged from her children, and never had an issue with lawyers. She was a caring daughter, but her parents were self-sufficient, and she was very happy when Alex moved to the Altona property;

(i) finally, she noted that Dr Kaplan had given evidence that she is emotionally fragile and is prone to excitement when emotionally stressed.

187 Ms DeakFabrikant called a number of witnesses to give evidence on her behalf, including her brothers, her son, her niece, and a number of friends and neighbours.

188 Ms DeakFabrikant's brother, Felix Deak, swore an affidavit on 24 July 2013, in which Mr Deak deposed that his sister met Paul Grech in 1991, and fell in love. Ms DeakFabrikant settled with all of her furniture and belongings at the Altona property. They lived together as husband and wife and shared all domestic duties. In 1996, Paul Grech presented Ms DeakFabrikant with an engagement ring and took her on a honeymoon trip to meet his relatives. Together with Stephen Grech, Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Paul Grech were often guests at celebrations at his and other relative's homes. In 1999, they purchased land at Sanctuary Lakes for their retirement home. He gave Ms DeakFabrikant a copy of 'home video fragments' he made during the course of the eighteen years that he and Ms DeakFabrikant lived together, which was exhibited to Ms DeakFabrikant's primary affidavit.[14]

189 In his oral evidence at trial, Felix Deak gave evidence that:

(a) he once took Ms DeakFabrikant to the Family Court in 1991 to collect documents;

(b) he gave Ms DeakFabrikant five oil paintings;

(c) he described the furniture Ms DeakFabrikant had at her apartment in Richmond;

(d) he first met Paul Grech at the Richmond apartment in 1991, and spent his first Christmas in Australia at the Altona property in December 1991. Prior to that occasion he repaired the intercom system at the Altona property;

(e) he has talked to Paul Grech about Paul's investment property in Braybrook;

(f) Paul Grech took him to visit the Sanctuary Lakes property in 2006 or 2007, when the house was nearly finished;

(g) their separation was a surprise to the family;

(h) since the separation, he and his wife have visited the Altona property two, three, or four times a year to assist Ms DeakFabrikant with cleaning, minor repairs, and shopping; and

(i) he described the events on the DVD. He identified the following events shown in the DVD:

(i) a New Year's party at the start of 1992 (although the DVD 'title' for the segment refers to the occasion being his mother's birthday in October 1992);

(ii) his nephew Andrew's birthday in May 1992 (although the DVD title refers to December 1992);

(iii) his father's funeral on 22 February 1993;

(iv) a visit by Paul Grech and Ms Deak-Fabrikant to his apartment in Elwood in late 1993;

(v) his fiftieth birthday party in 1995, at which Stephen was present;

(vi) a party at his home in Cheltenham in 2000;

(vii) a New Year's Eve party at his home in Cheltenham in 2001;

(viii) a visit to the Altona property in 2003;

(ix) his sixtieth birthday party in 2005, at which Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Paul Grech were present; and

(x) his wife's birthday party in August 2008, being the last time at which he saw Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Paul Grech together.

190 During the course of his crossexamination, he gave the following evidence:

(a) he agreed it was technically possible to add in dates into DVD footage when editing videos, but that the dates shown in the DVD played to the Court were recorded by the video camera;

(b) he first came to Australia on 19 December 1990;

(c) his nephew Andrew's birthday party was in 1992, because it was before his father passed away;

(d) his father passed away in February 1993, and the funeral was two to three days after his death. When it was put to him there was other evidence that his father died in 1994, he accepted that the date shown on the DVD might be wrong; and

(e) he confirmed that there was no video footage of the family celebrating Christmas at the Altona property in December 1991. He gave evidence that he did not have a video camera because they had just arrived in Australia, despite earlier giving evidence that he had filmed family occasions while living in the Soviet Union.

191 Ms DeakFabrikant's other brother, Yanosh Bronshtein, swore an affidavit on 9 August 2013, in which he said that he knew Paul Grech from about 1991 as his sister's partner. He visited the Altona property on many occasions between 1991 and 2008. He deposed that his sister was helping to raise Stephen Grech and James Grech, and that she performed household duties for Paul and his family. Ms DeakFabrikant took all of her furniture and household goods to the Altona property, and bought a number of brand new items such as an air conditioning unit, refrigerator, TV, VCR, sound system and roof antenna. They socialised regularly, including with Paul's relatives. Paul Grech told him that he had purchased an investment property in Errol Street, Braybrook, and in 2002 he helped Paul move his old furniture into that property. Paul Grech also took him to visit the Sanctuary Lakes property where he was building a home for his and Ms Deak-Fabrikant's retirement.

192 At trial, Yanosh Bronshtein gave the following evidence:

(a) he and his family arrived in Australia in September 1989;

(b) he and his family stayed with Ms DeakFabrikant in a fully furnished home in Mount Waverley for about seventeen to eighteen months. During this period Ms DeakFabrikant was working as a nurse;

(c) Ms DeakFabrikant lent him about $10,000 to get established in Australia;

(d) Ms DeakFabrikant moved to an apartment in Richmond a few months after his family left the home they were living in together, and he identified the furniture in the Richmond apartment as furniture Ms DeakFabrikant subsequently took to the Altona property. He said that Ms DeakFabrikant lived in the Richmond apartment until late 1991, having lived there for about half a year;

(e) he identified a photograph of Stephen as having been taken in 1991 at his apartment when Stephen accompanied Paul Grech to his home to seek his advice about purchasing a computer for Stephen;

(f) he identified a number of other photographs as having been taken in 1991, 1992 and 1993, including photographs taken at the Altona property at Christmas 1991, a picnic in 1992 or 1993, and his wife's and Ms Deak-Fabrikant's birthday parties in July and August of 1992. When pressed about how he was aware of the dates upon which certain photographs had been taken, he gave evidence that the photographs had been taken from photograph albums which were organised chronologically. He agreed to bring these albums to Court when he resume his evidence, and the empty spaces in the album would help him identify the dates of the photographs he had given Ms DeakFabrikant. However, when he did return, he gave evidence that the photographs in his albums were digitised in or about 2009, and the albums had been discarded;

(g) he did however bring to Court an ornamental photograph frame which he said had belonged to his late mother, which had five photographs in it of family members, three of which had dates noted on the back. One of the photographs included Stephen Grech, being another copy of a photograph identified by him earlier in his evidence, and had a handwritten date on the back '1991'. A sample of his handwriting showed that it is unlikely that the photographs were dated by him;

(h) like his brother, Felix Deak, he refused to concede that photographs taken of the same people wearing the same clothes were likely to have been taken on the same day;

(i) when he first visited the Altona property in 1991 it was in a dirty and neglected state;

(j) Stephen Grech was treated as a member of the family, and both Stephen and Paul Grech attended his father's funeral in 1994 and his mother's funeral in 2005; and

(k) he never saw Paul Grech and Ms DeakFabrikant fighting; and

(l) he made the DVD of a visit by him and his wife to the Sanctuary Lakes property on the occasion of Paul Grech's sixtieth birthday in August 2007.

193 Ms DeakFabrikant's friend, Valery Sverdlin, swore affidavits on 7 August 2013 and 24 October 2013, where he deposed that he had met Paul Grech about nineteen years ago. About eight years ago, when Paul was doing work on an extension to his house, Paul spoke to him about some plans for a home he was building for him and Ms DeakFabrikant for their retirement. At about that time, Paul Grech also spoke to him about a proposed subdivision of the Altona property. Paul Grech asked him to draw up some plans for the redevelopment, as Mr Sverdlin is an architect, however he declined as he was too busy.

194 During the course of his oral evidence at trial, Mr Sverdlin:

(a) identified various furniture and objects photographed at the Altona property as also having been at Ms DeakFabrikant's Mount Waverley home;

(b) outlined the planning approval process that would have been required to effect a subdivision of the Altona property; and

(c) gave evidence that Paul Grech appeared to be very proud of the garden at the Altona property.

195 Ms DeakFabrikant's friends, Gregory and Anna Sapozhnikov, both swore affidavits on 9 August 2013. Mr Sapozhnikov deposed that he and his wife were first invited to the Altona property about a dozen years ago, and that Paul Grech and Ms DeakFabrikant hosted them on many occasions, preparing meals together. Paul Grech often talked with them about the house he was building at Sanctuary Lakes for them to move into, and Paul Grech took him there on one occasion in 2007. Mrs Sapozhnikov deposed that she and her husband first met Ms DeakFabrikant and Paul Grech as a couple in 2001. Ms DeakFabrikant had to travel to Sydney for a few days, and asked her to stay at the Altona property to care for the family pets. She also stayed for a few days in October 2007,[15] when Ms DeakFabrikant was hospitalised. During that visit Paul Grech told her of his plans for the couple to move to the Sanctuary Lakes property for their retirement. He took her to visit the property and showed her where he intended to build an enclosure for the cats and an aviary for the birds. Paul Grech shared with her his concern about Ms DeakFabrikant's reluctance to move to Sanctuary Lakes. When pressed for a reason, Paul Grech told her it was because he had not added her name to the title of the Sanctuary Lakes property, as he had promised to do.

196 Gregory Sapozhnikov had little to add to his affidavit evidence at trial, save to say that Paul Grech is an excellent cook. Anna Sapozhnikov gave evidence that she had been friends with Ms DeakFabrikant for over thirty years. She observed that Paul Grech loved the pets and the garden at the Altona property and that Paul fed and cared for and talked about the pets. He told her about things he and Ms DeakFabrikant did in the garden together. When she stayed at the Altona property when Ms DeakFabrikant was hospitalised, Paul Grech asked her to call Ms DeakFabrikant at the hospital to obtain instructions of how to use the washing machine. She gave evidence that she visited the Sanctuary Lakes property, which was nearly complete.

197 Anna Sapozhnikov gave evidence that when she visited the Sanctuary Lakes property with Paul Grech, he told her that he it was his dream home for retirement with Ms DeakFabrikant and the family pets.

198 When crossexamined by counsel for Paul Grech, Anna Sapozhnikov gave evidence that she also stayed at the Altona property when Ms DeakFabrikant visited Sydney to help look after the pets and to look after Paul Grech's medication. She did not refer to that visit in her affidavit because she only included in her affidavit what was suggested to her by Ms DeakFabrikant's former solicitors. She gave evidence that Paul Grech started the conversation where he told her that Ms DeakFabrikant did not want to move into the Sanctuary Lakes property, he thought because he had not put her name on the title. Anna Sapozhnikov was then reluctant to discuss whether she told Ms DeakFabrikant about this conversation, or what Ms DeakFabrikant said in response, because 'it was not her business.' Eventually she gave evidence that she told Ms DeakFabrikant of the conversation a couple of days later, and Ms DeakFabrikant told her that 'we will see what happens'. She later retracted that evidence and said she could not recall what was said by Ms Deak-Fabrikant when they discussed this matter. She believed that when she visited the Sanctuary Lakes property in October 2007 it was almost complete, with no tools or equipment lying around, and looked just about ready to occupy. In reexamination, Anna Sapozhnikov gave evidence that Ms DeakFabrikant told her she was looking forward to living at the Sanctuary Lakes property with her name on the title.

199 Ms DeakFabrikant's son, Alex Fabrikant, swore affidavits on 20 August 2013 and 12 May 2014. In his affidavit sworn on 20 August 2013, Alex Fabrikant deposed that in 1991 his mother told him about a new friend named Paul. He remembered that it was 1991 because he was studying at Melbourne University and he and his then girlfriend Karen were staying with his mother in Richmond. He and Karen were together between 1991 and November 1995. After his mother and Paul Grech dated for a few months she moved into the Altona property with all of her furniture and belongings, as the house was pretty much vacant. He and Karen moved to South Yarra. His mother has lived at the Altona property continuously since. Paul Grech asked him to tutor Stephen, whom he saw weekly, but they only became close friends five years later. Paul and his mother invited him and his fiancée Michelle to live at the Altona property when they were on their honeymoon in 1996. His mother, Paul and Stephen were very involved in the preparations for his wedding to Michelle in 1997. He and Michelle lived at the Altona property for almost two years until August 1998, and paid $150 a week towards expenses. During that period, he observed his mother doing most of the household chores as well as taking calls for Paul's business and assisting Paul's son James who had a mental health disability. It was common for relatives from both sides to visit the Altona property.

200 Alex deposed that Stephen and his mother were very close, perhaps even closer than Stephen and Paul Grech were for many years. He observed that relatives from his side of the family got along well with those of Paul's side of the family. He regularly saw his mother taking calls for quotes and arranging Paul's diary during the day, the evening and the weekend.

201 Alex Fabrikant also gave evidence that Ms DeakFabrikant purchased most of his furniture from him when he left Australia in 2007 for use at the Altona property. He deposed that he had many discussions with Paul, Ms DeakFabrikant and Stephen Grech about the plans for the Sanctuary Lakes property. He visited the Sanctuary Lakes property on many occasions with Paul Grech, and also with his mother. He had also visited the Errol Street property on many occasions.

202 Alex Fabrikant gave evidence at trial by telephone from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He gave evidence that he was able to provide the dates in his affidavit by reference to the period of his relationship with his then girlfriend Karen (1990 to 1995), and the time that he was at Melbourne University (1989 to 1993). He gave evidence that he moved to his mother's Richmond apartment with Karen after a lease fell through. He and Karen also lived in Albert Park, Armadale, and South Yarra. However, he could not recall whether they lived in Carlton then Armadale before moving to Richmond or just in Carlton. He gave evidence that he consulted with his mother about dates when preparing his affidavit. He broke up with Karen in May 1995.

203 Alex Fabrikant gave evidence that he did not personally observe that the Altona property was vacant prior to his mother moving there, or any repairs or renovations being undertaken. He recalls visiting his mother at her flat in Elsternwick, near Ripponlea, but could not recall when she lived there or whether she lived there when he gave her a cat, or whether she lived near her parents. He could not recall whether an incident where his mother's cat went missing occurred at the Richmond property or the Elsternwick property.

204 During the course of his reexamination, he gave evidence that he never saw Stephen Grech physically assault Ms DeakFabrikant when he lived at the Altona property. He was asked whether he remembered when Ms DeakFabrikant's cat became lost. He replied that he could remember the cat disappearing and being found, but, again, he could not recall whether that occurred at the apartment in Ripponlea or the apartment in Richmond. He could not recall whether Paul Grech invited him and Karen to live in the Altona property after they left the Richmond apartment.

205 Paul Grech's cousin, Helen Briffa, swore an affidavit on 27 August 2013. Ms Briffa deposed that she had met Ms DeakFabrikant in 1994, having been introduced by Paul to her as his partner, and that she often saw her accompany Paul to family functions. Ms DeakFabrikant helped Stephen Grech out with his education, and was instrumental in him going to Westbourne Grammar. Ms DeakFabrikant told her that after Stephen finished university she and Paul Grech funded Stephen's overseas holiday.

206 Helen Briffa added very little to her affidavit evidence at trial. She was taken to an invitation sent by her in 1994 as being addressed to 'Paul and partner'. She agreed that most of the information in her affidavit was based upon what Ms Deak-Fabrikant told her.

207 Ms DeakFabrikant's niece, Katya Dewan, swore an affidavit on 28 August 2013. She deposed that she has known 'Uncle Paul' since she was a little girl in primary school, and in the eyes of her and her brother he was her aunt's husband. Her aunt and Paul Grech would celebrate many birthdays and other occasions with her family, and Paul Grech helped her father with a few renovations at their home in Cheltenham.

208 At trial, Katya Dewan gave evidence that she was born in 1980. She is Yanosh Bronshtein's daughter. She identified the dates and occasions at which she was present in various photographs and videos, including the DVD compiled by Felix Deak, including her grandmother's seventieth birthday in 1992 or 1993, and her brother's seventh birthday in 1993 (because there were seven candles on the cake and he was born in 1986).[16] She gave evidence that she believed she first met Paul Grech when she was in primary school, and that she went to high school a year earlier than her peers. She attended many family celebrations and events at the Altona property and elsewhere with her parents. She identified a refrigerator at the Altona property as having been at the Mount Waverley property.

209 Katya Dewan gave evidence that her grandparents, including her grandfather, played an active role in caring for her younger brother Andrew. Her grandfather was never very ill before he died. She gave evidence that she celebrated one New Year's Eve at the Altona property: she believes that it was New Year's Eve of 1992. She recalls Paul Grech being at her grandfather's funeral in February 1994, but did not remember whether or not Stephen Grech was there.

210 Katya Dewan gave evidence that Ms Deak-Fabrikant is a great cook, a good housekeeper, and a very caring person. It was owing to her efforts that three families came to Australia, and the house and garden at the Altona property are immaculate. When asked in crossexamination whether she could reconcile Ms Deak-Fabrikant's aggressive and argumentative conduct in the court room with her knowledge of her aunt, she said 'but she's in a high pressure situation, her life depends upon it'. While she was able to provide estimates of dates of events shown in photographs, she conceded that unless the event depicted was her birthday or a family member's birthday she could not be entirely sure. In response to a question unrelated to dates of events, she said 'no, I haven't lived with her, no, since '91'.

211 Witnesses who swore affidavits which could not be relied upon by Ms Deak-Fabrikant at trial included Regina Gatt, a friend of Paul Grech's daughter Kathy, who failed to attend court to give evidence, and Stella Fabrikant, Ms Deak-Fabrikant's daughter, who commenced giving evidence by way of videolink from Perth. However, during the course of crossexamination, Ms Deak-Fabrikant withdrew her reliance upon Stella Fabrikant's affidavit, on the basis that she did not want to subject her to the stress of crossexamination.

212 Other witnesses who had not sworn affidavits were called by Ms Deak-Fabrikant to give oral evidence: Heather Gordon, a barrister and friend of Ms Deak-Fabrikant, who had previously undertaken legal work for both Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Paul Grech in their respective family law matters; Gernot Huth, a friend of Ms Deak-Fabrikant's; a general practitioner, Dr Andria Economides; and Gaetano Armeri, a neighbour of Ms Deak-Fabrikant.

213 Heather Gordon deposed as to the accuracy of a statement made by her on 21 November 2008,[17] and Mr Huth did likewise as to two statements made by him on 10 January 2010 and 23 September 2014. In her statement made on 21 November 2008, Heather Gordon stated that she has been friends with Ms DeakFabrikant since about 1990, when she became her solicitor. She deposed that Ms DeakFabrikant started seeing Paul Grech in the early to mid1990s, and that she had lunch at 'Paul's house' in the 1990s. She knew that they travelled together, and they seemed to have a close and affectionate relationship. Ms DeakFabrikant had a lot of contact with Paul Grech's children.

214 During the course of her oral evidence, Heather Gordon gave the following evidence:

(a) she met Paul Grech through Ms Deak-Fabrikant, who had been a family law client of hers. At that time she was still practising as a solicitor, but was self-employed;

(b) she drew an affidavit on his behalf which was sworn on 29 October 1992, and rendered an invoice to him in February 1993;

(c) Paul Grech did not pay her account, rather, she was paid by Ms Deak-Fabrikant in cash with Ms Deak-Fabrikant's money some months later, which she retains to this day in her chambers;

(d) she believes that Ms Deak-Fabrikant met Paul Grech at Court while Ms Deak-Fabrikant was representing herself after she ceased employment with Wilmoth Field Warne. She believes Wilmoth Field Warne ceased acting for Ms Deak-Fabrikant because she stopped paying their bills. She left Wilmoth Field Warne some time in 1992, and signed the Bar Roll in May 1993;

(e) she visited the Altona property, and Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Paul Grech visited her home, she believes sometime in 1993; and

(f) she had no recollection of the matters referred to in an affidavit sworn by Paul Grech in October 1992, which was drawn by her, where he states that the Altona Meadows property has been vacant since 9 June 1992.

215 In a statement made on 10 January 2010, Gernot Huth and his late wife Aziza Zouzou Huth stated that they had known Ms DeakFabrikant since 1975, when they lived in the same apartment block. They have kept in close contact ever since, including after her divorce in 1991. They had many reciprocal visits with Ms DeakFabrikant and Paul Grech. In about 1998, Paul Grech told them that he was building a house in Point Cook in which to live and share his life with Ms DeakFabrikant as a married couple. In his statement made on 23 September 2014, the day before he gave evidence at the trial, which was headed 'Re: Lara Fabrikant and Paul Grech's Relationship as seen from 1991 to 1995' Gernot Huth stated:

1991

Towards the end of the year Lara moved from Richmond to Altona, to live with Paul whom she met earlier this year in the Family Court when both were dealing with their respective divorces.

1992

We didn't hear or see much of Lara this year as she was very busy with Paul cleaning up their Altona home. We only made the occasional stopover in Altona whenever we were on the way through to other friends in the Western Suburbs. It was on one of these occasions when Lara introduced Paul to us. Paul came across as a very charming and obliging individual and knew us better than we expected. They both showed a lot of affection for each other; something we were very happy about.

1993

On one of the visits to Altona that year, Paul took me upstairs to show off the new ensuite which he had renovated. He had every reason to be proud of a job well done. He was also very proud of the adjoining master bedroom which was tastefully arranged with Lara's furniture from her previous marriage. Similar displays of her furniture were seen elsewhere in the house.

1994

We did not see them much this year and limited our contacts mainly to phone calls. If Paul answered the phone he was always the charmer, and after a brief happy chitchat he quickly passed us on to 'my darling Lara' or 'Larusha'.

1995

This year we went to a more formal visit to celebrate Alex's birthday. There were a good number of people present, mostly from Lara's family and friends, whereas Paul's side was represented by himself and his son Stephen, who was living with his father and Lara.

216 During the course of his crossexamination at trial, Mr Huth was asked about how he compiled his statements. He said that he compiled them from his diaries, and from recollections of conversations he had with his wife about Ms Deak-Fabrikant's affairs. He believed his recollection of events about Ms Deak-Fabrikant's affairs was good because they were events which affected him and his wife a lot, so they stayed in his memory. He first said that he had made notes of his recollections, and placed them in his diaries, and then later shredded these notes, but later said he had shredded them at the time they were made and recorded their contents on the computer. He said he and his late wife constantly talked about Ms Deak-Fabrikant in recent years prior to his wife's death, and made notes about it from around 2011, as they knew there were court proceedings under way and she might need their help. He and/or his late wife would speak to Ms Deak-Fabrikant by telephone at least weekly since her divorce in 1990 or early 1991.

217 Mr Huth gave evidence that he first saw Paul Grech at Ms Deak-Fabrikant's Richmond apartment in 1991. He gave evidence that in 1992, Ms Deak-Fabrikant was busy cleaning up the Altona property, it was messy and disorganised, and she was always too busy to visit them. The Altona property looked disorganised when he visited in 1992 but he did not actually see them cleaning. He could not recall when Ms Deak-Fabrikant first made complaints to him about her relationship with Paul Grech. He could not recall what year Ms Deak-Fabrikant's father died, when Alex got married, when Alex gave her a cat, or when her mother died.

218 Mr Huth gave evidence that he believed Ms Deak-Fabrikant was no longer in the Richmond apartment at Christmas 1991 because he called her to invite her to his home and the telephone was disconnected. He was certain that Paul Grech showed him the renovated bathroom at the Altona property in 1993. He was not aware of Ms Deak-Fabrikant living away from the Altona property for any period of time. He attended Alex's birthday celebration in 1995, and Paul and Stephen Grech were there from Paul's side of the family. He was less certain that it was in 1995 after seeing an inscription on a photograph suggesting it occurred in 1994.

219 Ms Deak-Fabrikant called a neighbour, Gaetano Ameri, to give evidence. He gave evidence that after Paul Grech left the Altona property, he helped Ms Deak-Fabrikant clean out the garage, with general repairs and installed a new gate. Sometimes he helps her with cleaning, and his wife shares food cooked by her with Ms Deak-Fabrikant. He used to mow her lawn, but she now has a gardener. He was asked in crossexamination as to whether he was frightened of Paul Grech, and answered in the negative.

220 Finally, Ms Deak-Fabrikant called Dr Andria Economidis, a general practitioner at the Altona Medical Centre, to give evidence. She verified her clinical notes in relation to her treatment of Ms Deak-Fabrikant.

221 Dr Economides was called to give evidence in support of Ms Deak-Fabrikant's allegations that Paul Grech assaulted her on the morning of 28 September 2008. She is a general practitioner at the Altona Medical Centre. Ms Deak-Fabrikant showed her three photographs which showed some bruising on her upper left arm. Dr Economides gave evidence that Ms Deak-Fabrikant consulted her about these injuries on 30 September 2008, and that the photographs reflected what was recorded in her clinical notes. She referred Ms Deak-Fabrikant for an ultrasound, an xray, and a cortisone injection.

222 Dr Economides gave evidence that on 17 November 2008 she referred Ms Deak-Fabrikant to a hand specialist. She believed she was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which manifested itself with pain in the hands, numbness, 'pins and needles' and possible weakness.

223 Dr Economides gave evidence that Ms Deak-Fabrikant had consulted her with shoulder pain in 2005, but there were no further consultations regarding shoulder pain until 2008. Dr Economides verified an opinion she had made in a written statement on 17 November 2008 that she thought that, given her symptoms, it was unlikely that Ms Deak-Fabrikant would have been able to impose significant physical force against another person. Dr Economides prescribed Ms Deak-Fabrikant analgesic and anti-inflammatory medication, and sleeping tablets in the latter part of 2008. Her clinical notes are summarised in a report dated 17 November 2008.

Ms Deak-Fabrikant was seen on the 30/09/2008.

She stated that she had been involved in an argument with her partner on the 28/09/2008. As a result of what occurred on that day, she was suffering from left shoulder pain.

On examination there was bruising evident on her left upper arm (mid humerus region). There was pain on palpation at this site and also around the left acromioclavicular joint. Range of movement was very minimal in all directions because of the pain.

Ultrasound of the shoulder revealed evidence of subdeltoid bursitis.

Ms Deak-Fabrikant was reviewed on the 14/10/2008.

She complained of worsening left shoulder pain and as a result very minimal movement possible with her left arm. She was unable to carry out many of her personal activities of daily living. This was compounded by her several month history of bilateral hand carpal tunnel syndrome which has resulted in significant bilateral hand weakness, numbness and pain.

Ms Deak-Fabrikant was referred for ultrasound guided injection of cortisone and local anaesthetic to treat the subdeltoid bursitis.

I have also referred her to a specialist hand surgeon for surgery to treat her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

Our records show that Ms Deak-Fabrikant has presented on one previous occasion complaining of left shoulder pain-04/08/2005.

She has been a regular patient at our clinic over the last two years and during this time has not complained of left shoulder pain.

In my opinion her current left shoulder symptoms are a result of the acute injury she sustained on the 28/09/2008.

Her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome limits significantly the power/strength she has in her hands, and therefore, in my opinion I believe it very unlikely that she would be able to impose any significant physical force against another person.

224 On 15 February 2010, Dr Economides received a report from a radiologist regarding an ultrasound carried out on Ms Deak-Fabrikant's left shoulder. On 21 October 2010, she wrote a letter, addressed 'to whom it may concern,' as follows:

Larissa Deak-Fabrikant has a history of chronic severe bilateral shoulder pain/wrist pain/bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and as such this makes it difficult for her to carry out her everyday personal activities and any sort of clerical work.

225 Dr Economides was unable to answer some questions posed by Ms Deak-Fabrikant in relation to the investigation and possible treatment of her condition, in part because she was not a party to the correspondence, and in part because she did not consider that she had the expertise to proffer an opinion.

226 Dr Economides was cross-examined about the various medications prescribed for Ms Deak-Fabrikant over the years. She was unable to identify which condition she prescribed Celebrex for in 2008, and noted that, apart from some prescriptions in 2014, there were no prescriptions for stronger pain killers such as Panadeine Forte. She accepted that to some extent her observations and opinions were informed by what her patient tells her during their consultations.

227 Paul, Stephen and Jelvie Grech relied upon the following affidavits at trial:

(a) an affidavit of Paul Grech sworn 18 March 2014;

(b) affidavits of Stephen and Jelvie Grech sworn 17 March 2014;

(c) an affidavit sworn by Joe Grech (Paul's brother) on 16 March 2014;

(d) an affidavit sworn by Elysabeth Pangalila (Jelvie's mother) on 17 March 2014; and

(e) an affidavit of Christine Grech (Paul's sister-in-law) sworn on 18 March 2014.

228 The affidavit sworn by Paul Grech on 18 March 2014 was voluminous, running to some 89 pages and 487 paragraphs. His affidavit evidence covered the following events in the period between 1991 and 1994:

(a) his separation from his former wife, Gail Grech in March 1991, and his living arrangements after that time. Stephen came to live with him at Polly Woodside Drive in December 1991;

(b) the Family Court proceedings between him and Gail Grech, which were initiated by Gail Grech in December 1991, and finalised by agreement on 9 June 1992, during which time he was represented by Tony Lava of Glenisters;

(c) his meeting Ms DeakFabrikant for the first time at the Family Court on 9 June 1992, and his conversation with her that day;

(d) the terms of the property settlement with Gail Grech, which left him with two properties with an estimated combined value of $210,000 to $230,000;

(e) his moving with Stephen to the Altona property in June 1992, his enrolment of Stephen at Westbourne Grammar in 1992 (to commence in July 1992), and the role his sister-in-law, Christine Grech, played in tutoring Stephen in maths;

(f) his discussions with Stephen about the future, including the plans to purchase and develop property, and to undertake a redevelopment of the Altona property;

(g) the condition of the Altona property in 1992, and the cleaning and repairs to the Altona property undertaken by him and Stephen before moving into the property in June 1992;

(h) his further meetings with Ms DeakFabrikant in June to August 1992, and their developing friendship, although he maintained it was not a romantic relationship at that time;

(i) Ms DeakFabrikant asking him in late July or August 1992 for somewhere to stay, because she was having issues living with her son and his girlfriend;

(j) after discussing the matter with Stephen, he agreed that Ms DeakFabrikant could come to stay with them, and he did not require her to pay rent, as she was on a pension and struggling to pay her bills. He and Stephen assisted her to move her belongings to the Altona property;

(k) he described the furniture and belongings Ms DeakFabrikant brought to the Altona property;

(l) Ms DeakFabrikant lived at the Altona property from August 1992 to March 1993, during which period she had her own bedroom; and

(m) Ms DeakFabrikant moved out in March 1993 and did not return to the Altona property until about July 1994.

229 Paul Grech gave extensive evidence about the parties' living arrangements, the relationship between him and Ms DeakFabrikant, the relationship between Ms DeakFabrikant and Stephen, and the parties' relationship with each other's extended families between August 1992 and March 1993. Paul Grech deposed that:

(a) during the period Ms DeakFabrikant lived at the Altona property, between August 1992 and May 1993, he got to know her well, and he enjoyed spending time with her, despite their different backgrounds and interests;

(b) after a few months he and Ms DeakFabrikant discussed the possibility of a relationship. He was in no hurry to enter a relationship given the recent end of his twenty year marriage;

(c) in around February 1993, he and Ms DeakFabrikant had a discussion about their living arrangements and the future of their relationship. The catalyst for this was a suggestion by Ms DeakFabrikant that he provide her with a grocery allowance of $100 per week so that she could shop for the three of them. He rejected this suggestion, and stated words to the effect that 'Larissa, you keep your pension and your money and I will keep my assets and money. I am not interested in any other type of arrangements ... what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine.';

(d) during the course of that conversation Ms DeakFabrikant asked if he had any plans for their future together, and he told her that he was happy with their current arrangements and never wanted to get married again;

(e) a few weeks after that conversation Ms DeakFabrikant told him he was not her type, that they had no future together, and that she would move out;

(f) he denied that Ms DeakFabrikant brought a fridge, a washing machine, or a large cacti collection to the Altona property;

(g) during this period Ms DeakFabrikant did her own washing and domestic duties and he and Stephen would attend to theirs, although they did share some chores and meals, and went grocery shopping together from time to time;

(h) he gave details of discussions he had with Ms DeakFabrikant about her health and family relationships;

(i) he gave evidence that Stephen and Ms DeakFabrikant related well to each other, but Stephen was busy with school and sport, and was largely selfsufficient in carrying out domestic duties for himself;

(j) Ms DeakFabrikant became friendly with his brother George and George's wife Christine, and the two couples socialised together regularly over that period;

(k) during this period, Ms DeakFabrikant introduced Paul to her two brothers, her parents, and her children Alex and Stella, mostly at her parents' flat in Elwood. He did not recall Stephen accompanying them, or her family visiting the Altona property during that period; and

(l) he met Alex for the first time at his flat in South Yarra in the context of Alex tutoring Stephen on a couple of occasions.

230 Paul Grech gave the following evidence regarding the period between March 1993 and mid 1994:

(a) when Ms DeakFabrikant left the Altona property in March 1993 she told him she was moving closer to her parent's home in Elwood, but did not give him her address;

(b) he did not hear from her for a couple of months, but in late April or early May 1993 she telephoned him to tell him she was living in a flat at Elsternwick, which needed some minor repairs, which she invited him to quote for. He did so, and with the landlord's approval carried out the works in May 1993. He exhibited two invoices issued by him for the works;

(c) after he completed the works at the Elsternwick property he started to see her 'casually', between one and four times a month over the next year to year and a half. He met with her brother and parents on a few occasions;

(d) during this period Ms DeakFabrikant visited the Altona property on approximately three occasions, one of which was the occasion of his nephew's sixth birthday party, which Ms DeakFabrikant erroneously described as Paul's birthday party;

(e) Ms DeakFabrikant remained friends with George and Christine Grech during this period, and there were several occasions where he collected Ms DeakFabrikant from the Elsternwick property and drove her to their home;

(f) in January 1994, Stephen decided he wanted to change schools, and enrolled at Coburg Preston Secondary College. He went to live with Paul's mother at her home in Bell Street, Coburg;

(g) in the three months prior to Ms DeakFabrikant's return to the Altona property, they began seeing each other more regularly. In May 1994, Ms DeakFabrikant told him she was having problems with her landlord, and she was struggling to meet the rent from her pension; and

(h) he did not recall Stephen ever visiting the Elsternwick property, and Stephen was generally not involved in his social life with Ms DeakFabrikant and her family.

231 Paul Grech gave evidence about his business affairs and property dealings during this period. He gave evidence that:

(a) between late 1991 and early 1993, he had worked for his brother Joe Grech at his business, Columbia Jeans, as a material layer and cutter;

(b) prior to that time, he had his own renovation business, doing bathroom renovations, tiling and general home maintenance. However, his ability to take on work was severely affected by a broken leg from a motorbike accident in 1988;

(c) in early 1993, he started taking on more renovation work. He denied Ms DeakFabrikant's assertions that the home telephone at the Altona property did not stop ringing seven days a week. By 1993, he had a mobile phone, which he used for business calls, of which there were only a few a week. He denied that Ms DeakFabrikant assisted in the business by redirecting materials deliveries or in any other way; and

(d) in March 1993, he sold the property at Ramu Parade, West Heidelberg, which he had received as a result of his property settlement with Gail Grech, for the sum of $63,500. Shortly after the settlement of the sale, he lent the sum of $58,000 to his brother Joe Grech, which is recorded in his notebook. He denies that Ms DeakFabrikant assisted in preparing this property for sale.

232 Paul Grech gave evidence about living arrangements, relationships, and events between mid-1994 and 1997, when according to his version of events, the relationships within the household started to go awry. He deposed, in summary, as follows:

(a) when Ms DeakFabrikant returned to the Altona property in around July 1994 they commenced a romantic relationship, but they did not discuss anything about marriage;

(b) at that time, Stephen was living at his grandmother's house, and did not return to the Altona property until he finished school in late 1995. Ms DeakFabrikant saw him from time to time at the Altona property at weekends, or at George and Christine Grech's home;

(c) they continued to keep their finances separate. All gas and electricity bills were split proportionately, the phone bill was split in half, and he paid the water bills and other outgoings on the property, and for the groceries, including food for his dog and her cat;

(d) when Ms DeakFabrikant returned to the Altona property in July 1994, she brought some additional items with her, including a TV, VCR, a bookshelf, a washing machine, an art collection, and a small fridge;

(e) in 1995, he renovated the upstairs bedrooms of the Altona property and added an en suite to the master bedroom. He did the work himself with Stephen's assistance, using materials purchased by him;

(f) he commented upon some of the contributions claimed to have been made by Ms DeakFabrikant at paragraph 20 of her primary affidavit. He acknowledged that she bought a fridge and an air conditioner in October 1995, and security doors in April 2002. He stated that he believed that a Brash's receipt dated 14 September 1991 had been tampered with. He denied that Ms DeakFabrikant had purchased a TV antenna, window furnishings, light fittings, or paid to repair the vacuum system at the Altona property;

(g) Stephen returned to live at the Altona property in late 1995. When he finished VCE, Stephen worked with him part-time doing tiling and renovation work. When Stephen commenced university he also worked part-time in petrol stations and cafes. He never gave Stephen money that he had not earned, and did not ever see Ms DeakFabrikant give him any money. Stephen did his own laundry and domestic duties. From this time until about mid-1997, Ms DeakFabrikant and Stephen appeared to get on well together;

(h) he gave evidence that he and Ms DeakFabrikant went on a European holiday between May and September 1996, at her suggestion, although they never described it as a 'honeymoon'. He paid the cost of the holiday ($45,000) from his savings;

(i) shortly after their return from their holiday, Ms DeakFabrikant asked him if Alex and his fiancé Michelle could live at the Altona property for a while to assist them to save money for a home. He agreed, and they lived there rent free until May 1998. Ms DeakFabrikant paid their share of the bills; and

(j) he commented upon Alex's relationship with his mother and Michelle, whom Alex married in January 1997. The only members of his family to attend the wedding were himself, Stephen, and his mother and her partner.

233 Paul Grech gave evidence about what he said was the deterioration in the relationships in the household from about mid1997, as follows:

(a) at around the time Alex and Michelle got married, Ms DeakFabrikant asked him about the issue of marriage. He told her that he did not want to get married again and would not marry her;

(b) shortly after that conversation, there was an outburst at the home of George and Christine Grech where Ms DeakFabrikant screamed at him, saying 'why don't you marry me? You should marry me. I am like your wife';

(c) in mid1997, he was present in the kitchen at the Altona property when Alex and Stephen were talking and making jokes. Ms DeakFabrikant got upset with them and said words to the effect that 'this is not your house Stephen, if you do not like it here you should leave';

(d) he believed they would forget about their argument but the tension grew from that time, to the extent that Ms DeakFabrikant banned Stephen from eating food from her fridge. At one stage she called the police because she claimed Stephen used her eggs, and they rarely spoke from that time;

(e) his relationship with Ms DeakFabrikant also deteriorated from that time. While he tried to keep the peace, Ms DeakFabrikant started arguments, including about their respective families, especially Paul's family. Their relationship with George and Christine, which had been close, fell away. She often became abusive and would threaten to take half of his house. She would sometimes threaten to call the police. Ms DeakFabrikant moved from their shared bedroom into another bedroom in around 2001;

(f) he noted that of the numerous photographs exhibited to the primary affidavit which included members of his family, only six were taken after 1997. Two were taken on a rare visit by Stephen, Jelvie and their son Noah on the occasion of Paul Grech's birthday in August 2007. While Stephen and Ms DeakFabrikant began to exchange limited general pleasantries by about 2006, Ms DeakFabrikant had no involvement in his life, or in Noah's life as a grandparent;

(g) in October 1998, Ms DeakFabrikant left the Altona property to go to Perth to visit her daughter Stella, and was away for several months; and

(h) in September 1998, his son James came to live at the Altona property. He lived independently in a caravan onsite, and departed in November 1998 to live at the Errol Street property. Ms DeakFabrikant was in Perth for most of his stay. James visited the Altona property regularly after the birth of his first child, but Ms DeakFabrikant had a falling out with James and his partner when the child was a baby, and they had no contact after 2001.

234 Paul Grech deposed that between 1998 and 2008 the number of visits that he and Ms DeakFabrikant made to family and friends together progressively declined. She made no visits to members of his family after 2004, and no-one from his family visited them at the Altona property after 2004 except for occasional visits by Stephen and Jelvie. He and Ms DeakFabrikant regularly visited her brothers and their families, and vice versa, but he did not discuss the problems in their relationship with them. He agreed that Anna Sopozhnikov stayed at the Altona property for a few days in 2007 when Ms DeakFabrikant was hospitalised. He had limited contact with Alex and Stella, Ms DeakFabrikant's children. He deposed that after her mother died in 2005, Ms DeakFabrikant started to acquire large numbers of animals. Between 2005 and 2008 she acquired and kept seven cats, over twenty mice, and over fifty budgerigars. In 2007, after frequent arguments, he built an aviary for the budgerigars and outdoor enclosures for the cats.

235 In his affidavit, Paul Grech went into extensive detail about the period leading up to their separation on 28 September 2008. At paragraphs 429 to 432 of his affidavit, Paul Grech deposed as follows:

I was unhappy living with Larissa in 2007 and 2008, however I put this unhappiness to one side and tried to carry on with my life as best I could. I focussed on finishing the Sanctuary Lakes property and looked forward to moving there. I intended to move there without Larissa as she had told me many times she would never live there.

In mid to late 2007, approximately six months prior to the occupancy permit being issued, I told Larissa that I intended to move to Sanctuary Lakes once it was fully completed. When I told her of my intentions Larissa said to me words to the effect of 'I told you I will never leave Queen Street, I have all my animals here now and it is my house.'

At approximately 7am on the 28 September 2008 Larissa assaulted me in the backyard at Queen Street. She then made false allegations to the police about the incident and later that evening I was arrested and later released. After I was released that evening Stephen helped me prepare a memorandum of what happened that morning between Larissa and me. Now shown to me at the time of swearing this affidavit and marked:

(a) 'PG53' is a true copy of my memorandum of what happened on 28 September 2008. I prepared the memorandum on the night of 28 September 2008;

(b) 'PG54' is a true copy of the my Undertaking of bail dated 28 September 2008; and

(c) 'PG55' is a true copy of the 'Notice of Intention to Defend Intervention Order' dated 29 September 2008.

Two days before 28 September 2008 Larissa was in the car with me and I noticed a bruise in her arm. I asked her about the bruise but she did not say anything about it. I refer to the photo in LDF183 of Larissa's affidavit and say that the same bruise that I observed on her arm two days earlier.

236 In the memorandum exhibited to his affidavit at 'PG-53', Paul Grech described an argument between him and Ms DeakFabrikant about the location of a compost bin in the backyard at the Altona property, the physical contact between them, his departing the Altona property, and his subsequent arrest by police at the Altona property that evening. He denied physically assaulting Ms DeakFabrikant, saying that he grabbed her arm after she pushed him and he lost his balance. He deposed that on 30 September 2008 he visited the Altona property in the company of Stephen Grech and police officers and that Ms DeakFabrikant physically attacked him. Charges of unlawful assault were filed against Ms DeakFabrikant. In the subsequent months they both obtained intervention orders against each other. He was ultimately found guilty of unlawful assault, and on another occasion, breaking an intervention order.

237 Paul Grech deposed that after he left the Altona property Ms DeakFabrikant made false allegations of rape. He deposed that all sexual relations between them had ceased as at 2005.

238 Paul Grech also gave evidence about his business activities, financial dealings, and the circumstances in which the Errol Street, Sanctuary Lakes, Speakmen Street, and Ballarat Road properties were acquired.

239 In relation to his financial situation, Paul Grech refers to his notebook, which shows that between June 1997 and July 1998 his brother, Joe Grech, repaid him the sum of $120,000. He exhibited copies of bank account statements which he said held funds from his personal savings and investments and loan repayments. At paragraph 261 of his affidavit, he deposed as follows:

Larissa made no contribution to my term deposit with the account number 81495624. She made no contributions to my personal savings, she made no contributions to my personal investments and she had made no contributions to the funds that I had originally lent to my brother Joe.

240 These funds were used for, among other things, the purchase of the Sanctuary Lakes property, a gift to Stephen and Jelvie Grech for their engagement and wedding, and a gift of $45,000 he made to Stephen in 2007 on the occasion of Stephen's thirtieth birthday.

241 Paul Grech gave the following evidence regarding the purchase by Stephen Grech of the Errol Street property:

(a) on 22 August 1998, Stephen purchased, with his encouragement, the Errol Street property using his own personal savings, which Stephen told him totalled approximately $65,000;

(b) he assisted Stephen to look for an investment property and attended the auction of the Errol Street property with Stephen and helped him bid, and paid the holding deposit of $2,000;

(c) Stephen paid for all outgoings and expenses relating to Errol Street, and all mail regarding the property was addressed to Stephen at the Altona property;

(d) he did not recall ever taking Ms DeakFabrikant to visit the Errol Street property, and denied telling her that he had purchased Errol Street, or that any portion of that property would be held on trust for her; and

(e) as he visited James at the Errol Street property regularly, he collected the rent from the tenants from time to time at Stephen's request.

242 Paul Grech deposed to the following matters regarding the purchase of the Sanctuary Lakes property:

(a) a few months prior to him purchasing the Sanctuary Lakes property, he told Stephen that he wanted to buy an investment property. He and Stephen looked at a number of properties and made enquiries with several banks. He was the under bidder on two commercial properties in Yarraville;

(b) he and Stephen went to look at the new land development in Sanctuary Lakes, and he decided to buy land there for $165,000. The deposit and the balance of the purchase price was paid from funds which he held in his bank accounts, which in turn were largely sourced from funds repaid to him by his brother, Joe Grech;

(c) at the time he purchased the Sanctuary Lakes property, he and Stephen discussed a number of options once the land was developed. He denied that it was purchased as a 'retirement' or 'dream home' for he and Ms DeakFabrikant. When he first took Ms DeakFabrikant to visit the Sanctuary Lakes property some months after he purchased it, she told him she did not like the location of Sanctuary Lakes, as it was too far from public transport and shops; and

(d) he denied that he told Ms DeakFabrikant that she would have an interest in the Sanctuary Lakes property, that he would register her name on the title, that they spent many nights around the table with Stephen, Alex and Michelle discussing the proposed plans for the Sanctuary Lakes property, that Ms DeakFabrikant made any financial or nonfinancial contribution to the property after its purchase, or that the failure to commence construction before 2004 was owing to lack of funds.

243 As for the construction of the house at the Sanctuary Lakes property, Paul Grech gave the following evidence:

(a) one of the conditions of the Contract of Sale for the Sanctuary Lakes property was that construction was to commence within three years of purchase. He was in no hurry to build, and Stephen assisted him to obtain two six month extensions. He submitted plans for the house and obtained a building permit on 10 September 2003;

(b) the slab was poured on 19 March 2004, and the frame was inspected on 2 December 2004. Between March 2004 and September 2008 he built the house with the assistance of Stephen on weekends and holidays and some other tradespeople. All trades and materials were paid by either him or Stephen, and most of the administration and paperwork was done by Stephen. Final inspection was completed on 28 November 2007 and an occupancy certificate was issued on 4 January 2008;

(c) he referred to the evidence of Yanosh Bronshtein, Ms DeakFabrikant's brother, regarding the video footage said to have been taken in August 2007. He believed that the video was made in or about August 2008, by reference to the images in the video which show road works undertaken near the Altona property, and a comparison of the images showing the condition of the Sanctuary Lakes property with photographs taken by him and Stephen in September/October 2008;

(d) during the visit of Yanosh and his wife referred to above, he refers to 'his' house, not 'our' house, and he denies telling them that he was looking forward to starting life at Sanctuary Lakes with Ms DeakFabrikant and their pets. In fact, he told them that Ms DeakFabrikant did not want to move to Sanctuary Lakes, and that if she did, he could make room for her cats, but he would only accept two cats, not eleven cats; and

(e) he denied having the conversations with Anna Sapozhnikov regarding his relationship with Ms DeakFabrikant and Ms DeakFabrikant's alleged interest in the Sanctuary Lakes property related by her in her affidavit.

244 Paul Grech exhibited a large number of documents to his affidavit, including:

(a) documents filed in the Family Court proceeding between him and Gail Grech between the period 18 December 1991 and 9 June 1992, which show his address as being the Altona Meadows property;

(b) extracts from a notebook which records, among other things, financial dealings between him and Joe Grech between 1977 and 1998;

(c) extracts from the Police Brief of evidence in the rape proceeding, including extracts from Dr Kaplan's records;

(d) two invoices dated May 1993 for works carried out by him at 15/211-213 Hotham Street, Elsternwick, addressed to Ms DeakFabrikant;

(e) various bank statements and other financial records;

(f) various contracts of sale and other documents relating to the sale of the Ramu Parade, West Heidelberg property, and the purchase of the Sanctuary Lakes property;

(g) documents relating to the construction of the Sanctuary Lakes property;

(h) various photographs of family members, the Altona property, and the Sanctuary Lakes property;

(i) various documents relating to the applications for intervention orders, assault charges, and the rape proceeding; and

(j) a letter from his former solicitors to Ms DeakFabrikant's former solicitors dated 9 March 2010, in which the solicitors sought the return of various items and documents located at the Altona property.

245 During the course of his oral evidence at trial, Paul Grech made a number of minor changes to his affidavit evidence, none of which were, despite Ms Deak-Fabrikant's protests, of any great significance. During the course of his crossexamination by Ms Deak-Fabrikant (which was not completed owing to the orders made by me on 30 October 2014 and 6 August 2015), he was asked questions about who prepared his affidavit. He gave evidence that he prepared it by telling his story to Stephen Grech, who typed it up, and then gave it to his solicitors for checking and correcting. He denied that the changes made earlier in his evidence were anything other than small mistakes. He could not recall when he retained his solicitors (his solicitors having filed a notice that they commenced to act on 18 March 2014, the date upon which Paul Grech swore his affidavit).

246 Ms Deak-Fabrikant questioned Paul Grech about a letter written by his previous solicitors to Ms Deak-Fabrikant's solicitors on 26 November 2012, where his former solicitors described the Altona property as Paul Grech's premises (not Stephen Grech's premises). He gave evidence that he had never read this letter, and his solicitor must have made a mistake. He agreed his solicitor's statement to the effect that he had no money then was correct.

247 He said that he was not living at the Speakmen Street address at the time the letter and the Notice of Ceasing to Act was served, but he maintained that he always gave his solicitors his current address. He believed he may have been living at his mother's home or his brother's home at the time, but did not recall where.

248 Paul Grech gave evidence that he was funding his current representation by borrowings from his brother and his son. He denied that he had committed a fraud by applying to Legal Aid to fund his representation in legal proceedings by reason of having gifted two properties and cash to his son, saying that Legal Aid 'knows the full story'.

249 Paul Grech was crossexamined at some length about where he was currently living. He gave evidence that he had lived at his current address in Hadfield for three or four years. He did not own this property, but was staying there rent free. He denied that he was living with his mother in Bell Street, Coburg. Ms Deak-Fabrikant accused him of forging the address on his driver's licence. He did not understand why Legal Aid sent a letter to him on 20 August 2013 addressed to him at the Speakmen Street property.

250 Ms Deak-Fabrikant contended that Paul Grech did not tell the truth in his affidavit, by reason of his statement in his affidavit that he had made it in support of his counterclaim (when there was no such counterclaim). He conceded that he may have made an error with his daughter's birth date, and that he sometimes mixed up dates. He gave evidence that the statement in his affidavit that the separation between him and Gail Grech in March 1991 was the first time that they had separated was correct, notwithstanding Stephen Grech's statement in his affidavit that his parents had separated on many occasions.

251 Paul Grech gave evidence that he did not have a computer or use email, and that an email sent to the Court on 23 January 2013 under his name must have been sent by Stephen Grech on his behalf. This email referred to the Speakmen Street address.

252 Paul Grech denied the suggestion that he had attended the Family Court in 1991 to make enquiries as to how to apply for custody of Stephen Grech and that was when and how he met Ms Deak-Fabrikant, saying that Stephen Grech chose to come to live with him. He was asked about the circumstances in which he engaged Tony Lava as his solicitor, and why he needed to ask Joe Grech for help in finding a solicitor when Tony Lava had been acting for him in relation to his transport accident in November 1991. He gave evidence that he did not know that Tony Lava did family law and his brother reassured him that he could.

253 Paul Grech was asked about an application for an intervention order made by Gail Grech on 28 August 1991. He identified the person in the photograph as his daughter Kathy. He has no recollection of assaulting his daughter and smashing her face. He then denied assaulting his daughter, or assaulting Ms Deak-Fabrikant. He did not agree with the statement of Gail Grech in an affidavit that he was of 'violent and aggressive disposition'. He disagreed with the statement that he had little to do with the upbringing of his children.

254 Paul Grech was taken to an affidavit he swore in the Family Court proceeding in 1992, when he stated that he had no formal qualification or trade, and that he had been out of full time paid employment since 1988. He agreed with this statement. He was challenged about his statement in his affidavit in this proceeding that he attended Court on 18 February 1992 with his solicitor Tony Lava, when the orders made that day show that he was represented by a Mrs Manderlert. He confirmed the evidence in his affidavit that this was his first visit to the Family Court, and he remembers also going there in April 1992 and June 1992. He said that on 27 April 1992, he spoke to Tony Lava on the telephone after the matter had not settled. He was unhappy that the matter had not settled in April 1992, and he recalled that in June 1992 Tony Lava did have someone at the court to assist him to settle the matter, despite there being a reference in a letter from Tony Lava earlier in 1992 that Paul Grech would attempt to settle the matter himself. He gave evidence that this letter was not accurate. He stated that when he met Ms Deak-Fabrikant at the Family Court she told him that he had done the right thing in agreeing to settle the matter. He was already in the process of negotiating a settlement at that time.

255 Paul Grech disputed Ms Deak-Fabrikant's contention that after he attended court in April 1992 he came home to her and told her that he was furious with Tony Lava, and that she accompanied him to talk with Gail Grech, her friend Chris, and her solicitor. He denied that Ms Deak-Fabrikant accompanied him to Court on 9 June 1992. Not long after this evidence, the cross-examination came to an end.

256 During the course of the hearing on 30 October 2014, I questioned him about the following matters:

(a) his discussions with Stephen Grech about his plans to develop the Altona property when Stephen Grech first moved in with him in 1991. He gave evidence that he did have these discussions at that time, notwithstanding that Stephen was only fourteen years old, and that he was mature enough to understand the nature of these discussions;

(b) he disagreed with Ms Deak-Fabrikant's contention that she supplied the furniture and decorative objects and replaced window coverings at the Altona property. He gave evidence that the house was well organised before she first moved in, and the things that she did buy, such as an airconditioner and a refrigerator, she did without consulting him;

(c) the relationship between him and Ms Deak-Fabrikant after she left the Altona property in 1993. He said he attended a family function because she pressed him to, and that they were not living as a de facto couple straight away when she returned to the Altona property in 1994;

(d) the fact that his complaints in his affidavits regarding what Ms Deak-Fabrikant did in the garden and the presence of numerous pets seemed to be contradicted by the video and photographic evidence relied upon by Ms Deak-Fabrikant;

(e) he did not accept that the landscaping works carried out by Ms Deak-Fabrikant improved the value of the Altona property, because they created a high maintenance garden and restricted access across the property;

(f) why he pleaded guilty to the allegation of assault upon Ms Deak-Fabrikant when he denied having assaulted her? Paul Grech responded that he did not want to plead guilty, but his solicitor insisted that he plead guilty to put an end to the matter;

(g) the conflicting allegations by Ms Deak-Fabrikant in regard to what funds he had to purchase and construct the home at the Sanctuary Lakes property and to give Stephen and Jelvie Grech between 1998 and 2007. He gave evidence that he delayed constructing the house at the Sanctuary Lakes property because he wanted the land (which was former swamp land) to 'settle', but was forced to commence construction by the Sanctuary Lakes Resort Management;

(h) Paul Grech gave evidence that his working on the Sanctuary Lakes property did impede his ability to take on other paid work. However, his ability to work was also impeded by the long term effects of his motorbike accident. He had some income from his work during this period, perhaps $8,000, $10,000 or $15,000 per year, but he also used funds from his investments and funds repaid to him by his brother or sister to keep working on the Sanctuary Lakes property;

(i) he denied the allegations that he gave Stephen and Jelvie Grech a lot of money to pay off their mortgage. However, he agreed that he gave them money after their wedding, but could not recall how much, and he gave Stephen Grech $45,000 when he turned thirty in 2007; and

(j) when asked about the circumstances in which the Altona property and the Sanctuary Lakes property were transferred to Stephen and Jelvie Grech, Paul Grech gave the following evidence:

When I transfer Queen Street, I did have plan - actually, that's how it's it - when I got the valuation for the Queen Street, I did got valuation for Sanctuary Lake too, because I wasn't sure which one I'm going to use as Stephen, Stephen and me, I was trying to develop Queen Street, so, I didn't know which one I give to Stephen to get a loan, you see, I didn't - he had a better chance to get a loan than I did, and he - he understand on the computer and that, and I didn't know, so, because we - well, he's my son, we used to work together - but I never got Larissa involve what I'm doing. I never discuss anything what I do, and I never ask her how much she is getting, what pension she get. I never did, Your Honour. That's what I believe in myself, and, so, the question that you asked me, I didn't - - -

About the transfer to Jelvie?---Yeah, at that time, I felt like, you know, she kick me out from the house, and I said to Stephen, 'Let's go on the city and we'll transfer it on your name', and Stephen transfer it on Jelvie's name.

257 Stephen Grech also swore a voluminous affidavit, running to some 88 pages, and annexing a folder of exhibits. He deposed as to his family background and early life with his parents prior to their final separation in March 1991. He deposed that he lived at the Altona property until he was eight years old, and then over the next few years the family moved between three properties owned by his parents, including the Altona property.

258 Stephen Grech deposed that in December 1991 he moved to the Altona Meadows property to join his father, who lived by himself. In February 1992, he and his father decided that he should enrol at Westbourne Grammar, to commence later that year. He always intended to go to university. In June 1992, he and his father moved to the Altona property, which was well furnished. After that time he and his father had a number of conversations about his family, his future, and plans for the Altona property, including building some townhouses at the rear of the Altona property. He denied that he ever had a conversation with Ms Deak-Fabrikant where he was derisory of his parents and siblings, or referred to taking Paul Grech's money from him. He was, and remains close to his parents, siblings, and extended family.

259 Stephen Grech deposed that he first met Ms DeakFabrikant in around August 1992, when he went to Ms DeakFabrikant's flat in Richmond to help her move her belongings to the Altona property. He described the belongings she brought with her in some detail. He described what he knew about the domestic and financial arrangements within the household, the fact that Ms DeakFabrikant and his father seemed to be getting along well and were in the early stages of a relationship, and discussions he had with her about her health, her divorce, and her family affairs.

260 Stephen Grech gave evidence about his tutoring arrangements. He only visited Alex on two occasions at his flat in South Yarra before deciding he was not suitable. A local tutor, Tony Briffa, tutored Stephen throughout 1993. Between 1992 and September 1996, he saw Alex on about six occasions. He did not recall meeting any of Ms DeakFabrikant's family until late 1994, and he did not attend either of her parent's funerals.

261 Stephen Grech deposed that Ms DeakFabrikant left the Altona property in about February 1993. Ms DeakFabrikant told him on at least two or three occasions that she wanted a serious relationship with his father but that he refused to make any commitment to her. This was consistent with what his father told him.

262 Stephen Grech gave evidence that in December 1993 he wanted to change schools, but did not want to go to any of the high schools in the western suburbs. He made enquiries of schools and family members, and decided to enrol in VCE at Coburg Preston Secondary College, and live with his grandmother, Helen Scerri. He exhibited a copy of his Year 11 results which are addressed to him at 193 Bell Street, Coburg, and correspondence from Coburg Preston Secondary College in December 1995. During his VCE years he received Austudy of $75 per week, and he continued to receive Austudy while he was at university until the end of 1999. He worked for his father in his business from time to time during that period, and visited the Altona property regularly at weekends and during school holidays.

263 During the time he lived at Bell Street, Ms DeakFabrikant returned to live at the Altona property. He noticed that she brought more possessions with her than on the previous occasion, and described them. He moved back to the Altona property in December 1995, not long after he turned eighteen. He started at Latrobe University's Bundoora campus in March 1996, completing his degree at the end of 1999. While he lived at the Altona property during this period, he only went there to sleep. He spent his time attending classes and studying at the university, with friends, working or going to the gym. He usually did his own shopping and cooking. He rarely saw Ms DeakFabrikant cooking or cleaning, and never saw her working in the garden. Stephen worked parttime for his father in his business between March 1996 and March 2000, which included some administration and clerical work. His father operated his business using his mobile phone, which he was rarely without. He never observed any input into and involvement in Paul Grech's business on the part of Ms Deak-Fabrikant.

264 Stephen Grech rejected the assertions in Ms DeakFabrikant's and Alex Fabrikant's affidavits that he did not work during his university years. As well as working for his father, he had the following part-time jobs:

(a) from February 1996 to April 1997, as a station operator at Liberty Petrol Station in Brunswick, earning a minimum of $240 per week;

(b) from April 1997 to December 1997, as a waiter at a café in Fitzroy, earning a minimum of $192 per week; and

(c) from March 1998 to June 1998, as a station operator at a Mobil service station on the Western Ring Road, earning a minimum of $294 per week.

265 After March 1998, he helped his father in his business to earn extra money. He was also receiving $90 per week in Austudy payments, and payments of $100 per week through his membership of the Hollingsworth Cadetship program. This program also paid for his textbooks. His expenses were minimal, he did not drink alcohol, and he was able to save the bulk of his income.

266 Stephen Grech deposed that in 1995 he helped his father renovate the upstairs bedrooms at the Altona property. Ms DeakFabrikant did not contribute save for making comments as the renovations progressed. He lived alone at the Altona property while his father and Ms DeakFabrikant travelled to Europe on their holiday. After their return, Alex brought his new fiancée to the Altona property to meet Ms DeakFabrikant. Shortly after, Alex and Michelle moved in. During this period, he and Alex became friends and they shared many activities. He reported what Alex told him about his mother and their family relationships. He rejected Ms DeakFabrikant's and Alex's assertions that Alex socialised with members of the extended Grech family, and similar assertions made by Yanosh Brohnstein.

267 In his affidavit, Stephen Grech commented upon his father's and Ms DeakFabrikant's relationships with each other's extended families. He said that his father made an effort to build a relationship with Ms DeakFabrikant's parents and brothers, but Ms DeakFabrikant had very limited contact with Paul Grech's siblings apart from George and his wife Christine, with whom they socialised regularly between 1992 and 2001. Otherwise, she was derogatory about Paul Grech's family, describing them as 'ignorant and uneducated peasants'.

268 Stephen Grech deposed as to the breakdown of the relationship between him and Ms DeakFabrikant a few months after Alex and Michelle got married in January 1997. The members of the household were sitting at the kitchen table and he and Alex were joking, which Ms DeakFabrikant got upset about. He deposed as follows:

Larissa said to me 'Stephen you need to learn your place in this house. You are old enough now and your father has no responsibility to you. You have no rights here and if you don't like my rules then leave.'

I told Larissa she had no right to talk to me like that and said words to the effect: 'this is my father's house not yours, you have no right to threaten me...'

From that point forward my relationship with Larissa deteriorated. I avoided Larissa as much as possible and spent as little time at home as I could.

By about mid-2007[18] Larissa banned me from using 'her' fridge or eating any food that was in her fridge. About two years earlier she swapped the fridge my father and I were using with a new fridge she bought. When she changed it my father had an argument with her because his fridge was fine and still working.

My father had a small bar fridge in the garage so I put that near the kitchen and used that. Larissa, my father, Alex and Michelle continued to use Larissa's fridge.

When I did my shopping I kept my food on a separate shelf in the pantry to avoid any argument with Larissa about using 'her food' that my father paid for.

On one occasion in 2007[19] Larissa accused me of using some of her eggs. I was cooking them in the kitchen at the time after I had asked my father if I could use them. My father told me they were his eggs and it was fine. Larissa wanted the eggs back and threatened to call the police. I told her to call the police and she did.

After that event I avoided the kitchen and living area as much as possible and spent most of my time in my room. I continued to do my own washing and laundry. I never ate at the kitchen table when anyone else was eating to avoid any confrontation.

269 Stephen Grech disputed Alex Fabrikant's evidence about the frequency of Alex's visits to the Altona property after he and Michelle moved out in 1998. He usually visited to collect Stephen to go to the gym. After Alex moved to Glen Waverley in mid1999, he rarely visited the Altona property.

270 Stephen Grech also gave evidence about his observations of the deteriorating relationship between Ms DeakFabrikant and Paul Grech. He deposed as follows:

After Alex and Michelle moved out my father's relationship with Larissa had become increasingly strained. Larissa argued with my father often.

Several times during this period I heard my father and Larissa arguing about their relationship. I heard my father tell Larissa several times words to the effect 'if you are not happy here you can leave'.

Larissa threatened my father and said 'I will never leave...I know my rights...'

I heard Larissa argue with my father about their relationship and his commitment to her.

Larissa made it clear from what she said both to me on my own and my father when I was present with him that she did not want me to continue living at Queen Street. It was very clear from my observations of what Larissa said and did that she was resentful of the strong relationship I had with my father.

271 Stephen Grech rejected Ms DeakFabrikant's assertion that Paul Grech purchased or funded the purchase of the Errol Street property. He deposed that at the time he purchased Errol Street for the sum of $74,000 on 22 August 1998, he held savings in various accounts. His father paid a deposit of $2,000, and made a gift to him of $10,000 which he used to buy the Errol Street property, along with the funds in his savings accounts. He received all rents and paid all expenses associated with the Errol Street property, and he received mail at the Altona property regarding the Errol Street property, which he often opened in front of Ms DeakFabrikant. After he and Jelvie purchased the Speakmen Street property, all correspondence regarding the Errol Street property was sent there. Stephen Grech also deposed as to the tenancies of his brother James, his sister Kathy, and their partners and friends between 1998 and 2007. The Errol Street property has been vacant since May 2007, and he uses it for storage for his own renovation business. He plans to demolish the house and construct a commercial building there, as it is not financially viable to repair and renovate the existing house, and the land is zoned for commercial purposes.

272 Stephen Grech gave evidence supporting Paul Grech's evidence regarding Ms DeakFabrikant being away for some months in late 1998, during which period his brother James stayed in a caravan at the Altona property, which remained there as at 28 September 2008.

273 Stephen Grech gave evidence as to his knowledge of the circumstances in which the Sanctuary Lakes property was purchased and developed. He deposed, in summary, as follows:

(a) in the months prior to the purchase of the Sanctuary Lakes property he attended several auctions with his father looking to purchase an investment property;

(b) at the time he was aware that his father had approximately $150,000 invested at the Bank of Melbourne, including money repaid to him by his brother Joe. On one occasion he collected some money from Joe Grech on his father's behalf;

(c) in October 1998, he and his father went to look at land in Point Cook, and decided that the Sanctuary Lakes development was the best investment. They debated which block to buy. He accompanied his father when he visited the sales agent to sign the contract of sale and pay the deposit for the Sanctuary Lakes property. Ms DeakFabrikant was in Perth at that time and had no involvement in the transaction;

(d) he discussed Paul Grech's plans for the development of the Sanctuary Lakes property with him. In March 2002, Paul Grech gave him a letter from the Sanctuary Lakes Resort Management regarding the expiry of the three year period in which an owner was required to commence construction. He wrote to the Sanctuary Lakes Resort Management on two occasions, and successfully obtained two six month extensions;

(e) he confirmed the evidence in Paul Grech's affidavit regarding the progress of construction at the Sanctuary Lakes property. He and his father shared the costs associated with the Sanctuary Lakes property. He made a number of payments because he had a credit card and access to online banking. He helped his father build the house on the weekends, when he could, and took annual leave in 2005 to help his father with construction; and

(f) from the end of 2005 to mid-2006, he and his father completed the brick work and the floor tiles, and between mid-2006 and November 2007, they worked on the interior. An occupancy permit was issued on 4 January 2008. However, the house was far from complete in terms of meeting the standards required by the Sanctuary Lakes Residence Code. The work that needed to be completed included finishing off the bathroom and ensuite, the kitchen, painting, fitting of an alarm system, a hot water system and a heating and cooking system, and landscaping and fencing the exterior yard. Their goal was to finish the work by the end of 2008.

274 Stephen Grech also gave evidence regarding the following matters:

(a) his travels in 1999 and 2000, rejecting any assertion that Ms DeakFabrikant had contributed financially to his travel expenses;

(b) the ongoing strained relationship between him and Ms DeakFabrikant, and the arguments he overheard between his father and Ms DeakFabrikant;

(c) he met Jelvie in March 1999, and they starting dating in March 2000. He invited his father and Jelvie to his graduation ceremony, but not Ms DeakFabrikant;

(d) in late 2000 he became engaged to Jelvie. His father attended their engagement party with his sister, Stephen's aunt. Ms DeakFabrikant was not invited to the party and did not attend. A large number of the eighty to one hundred guests provided cash gifts to them in accordance with Chinese custom, which they saved to put forward to the deposit on the Speakmen Street property;

(e) in January 2001, he returned to Australia after several months overseas and returned to the Altona property. About a week later, Jelvie came to the Altona property. While Jelvie was in the bathroom, Ms DeakFabrikant entered into his bedroom and started to scream 'demeaning, offensive and derogatory' words about him and Jelvie. He then told his father that he had had enough, and a day or two later he went to live with Jelvie and her mother Elysabeth and her brother Chris at their flat in Flemington; and

(f) Stephen Grech deposed that he had very limited contact with Ms DeakFabrikant after leaving the Altona property in January 2001. She was not invited to and did not attend any family events he and Jelvie hosted at the Speakmen Street property, or accompany them on family outings. She did not visit Jelvie and their son Noah in hospital after Noah was born. On the other hand, Paul Grech was invited to and attended all of their family celebrations, and visited the Speakmen Street property regularly.

275 Stephen Grech also deposed as to his employment and financial circumstances, and his property dealings between 2001 and 2006, in summary, as follows:

(a) he rejected Ms DeakFabrikant's allegations that she and Paul Grech paid for a Ford Laser car. He sold this car to Ms DeakFabrikant in November 2005, when both he and Jelvie had company cars, and Ms DeakFabrikant told him she wanted to get her driver's licence;

(b) on 21 February 2001, he started work as an advertising sales representative with the John Batman Group. He and Jelvie discussed plans to buy a house together, and met with several banks and obtained a preapproved loan of $400,000. Jelvie's mother agreed to pay for their living expenses so they could save for a deposit, and he and Jelvie were able to save most of their income;

(c) on 26 June 2001, Jelvie signed the contract of sale and paid the deposit for the Speakmen Street property from their savings. The deposit was ten per cent of the purchase price of $377,000;

(d) on 3 October 2001, he and Jelvie paid a further $89,995.61 at the settlement of the purchase from their savings, which included an unspecified amount given to them by Paul Grech, which was a gift from him for their engagement and wedding;

(e) for the first year of the mortgage he and Jelvie were able to make unlimited repayments, which they took advantage of whenever they could;

(f) Jelvie's mother, Elysabeth, lived with Stephen and Jelvie at Speakmen Street for over two years, during which time she paid most, if not all, of the household expenses, which enabled he and Jelvie to make additional repayments upon their mortgage. By 2003, Jelvie was working full time, and by 2005, both he and Jelvie had the benefit of fully maintained company cars. Paul Grech did not contribute to any of the repayments to the mortgage, which expired on 16 October 2007, with an outstanding balance of $68,848.52. This was paid out by drawing upon a line of credit; and

(g) on 20 November 2006, he purchased the Ballarat Road property for $261,750 upon the advice of his accountant. He borrowed 100 per cent of the purchase price, and it was tenanted from shortly after settlement. It needed no renovations or repair, as it was nearly new, and all expenses associated with that property have been paid by him and Jelvie.

276 Stephen Grech also gave evidence regarding his and his father's plans for the Altona property, in summary, as follows:

(a) he and his father had made no secret of their plans to develop the Altona property, and Ms DeakFabrikant was present during some of their discussions;

(b) at the time of the granting of the occupancy certificate for the Sanctuary Lakes property, Paul Grech told him he wanted to finish the Sanctuary Lakes property by the end of the year and move there to live;

(c) by the time Paul Grech was removed from the Altona property on 28 September 2008, he had already made enquiries for a new Viridian line of credit. His finance broker told him that it would be best if the Altona property and the Sanctuary Lakes properties were in the name of him and Jelvie Grech. However, he and Paul Grech decided to transfer only the Altona property in January 2008, as Paul Grech was unsure what he planned to do with the Sanctuary Lakes property. On 27 October 2008, he and Jelvie received approval for credit of $1,085,150 after the Sanctuary Lakes property was transferred to Jelvie Grech. However, this transaction could not proceed because of the caveats lodged over the properties by Ms DeakFabrikant; and

(d) he asked Paul Grech to transfer the Sanctuary Lakes property to Jelvie because he already had three investment properties in his name and he wanted to 'balance out' their respective property portfolios.

277 Finally, Stephen Grech also gave evidence about the events of 28 September 2008, his attendance at the Altona property for the property exchange, his attendances at hearings concerning applications for intervention orders made by Ms Deak-Fabrikant against him and Paul Grech. He denied the allegations made by Ms DeakFabrikant in support of her (successful) application for an intervention order against him.

278 Stephen Grech exhibited a large number of documents to his affidavit, including, among other things:

(a) the certificates of title for the five properties and the caveats lodged over them by Ms DeakFabrikant;

(b) various photographs of and cards from family members;

(c) documents evidencing his enrolment at Coburg Preston Secondary College and his residence in Coburg;

(d) documents concerning his receipt of Austudy benefits and the Hollingworth cadetship;

(e) copies of pages of a quotation book he created for Paul Grech's business headed 'Paul and Steve';

(g) copies of bank statements and other financial documents, including a tax return for the 2007 financial year;

(h) documents concerning the purchase of Errol Street, including a receipt addressed to him for payment of the balance of the deposit, along with documents concerning tenancy arrangements, rental payments, and expenses associated with the Errol Street property;

(i) photographs of the Errol Street property showing its state of disrepair;

(j) a copy of his passport showing his travels;

(k) documents evidencing payments he had made in respect of the Sanctuary Lakes property since 1999, and other expenses he paid on behalf of Paul Grech;

(l) a letter dated 10 October 2005 evidencing a request for annual leave to assist Paul Grech with the construction works at the Sanctuary Lakes property;

(m) documents evidencing enquiries he had made from 2005 regarding the potential development of the Altona property;

(n) documents concerning Ms DeakFabrikant's application for an intervention order against him; and

(o) copies of email correspondence between him and Alex Fabrikant between 25 November 2007 and 18 March 2011, along with copies of other mail sent to him to take care of for Alex Fabrikant.

279 Finally, Stephen Grech swore an affidavit on 29 August 2014, exhibiting further documents concerning the design and construction of the house on the Sanctuary Lakes property. He also deposed that in February 2011 he set up a renovation business known as 'Strictly Renovations'.

280 During the course of the hearing on 30 October 2014, I questioned Stephen Grech about a number of aspects of his evidence. He gave evidence, in summary, as follows:

(a) Ms Deak-Fabrikant was not telling the truth when she vehemently denied that she discussed with him details of her past marriage, her personal circumstances, and her health;

(b) he agreed that during the early period of when Ms Deak-Fabrikant lived at Altona they had a positive and warm relationship;

(c) he and his father had already discussed his educational aspirations before Ms Deak-Fabrikant came to live at the Altona property. Also, he and Ms Deak-Fabrikant did not discuss university education, because when he arranged to enrol at university he was living in Coburg with his grandmother;

(d) he recounted the circumstances and possible cause of the breakdown of the relationship between him and Ms Deak-Fabrikant in mid to late 1997. He believed that she was unhappy about the relationship that Stephen Grech had with her son Alex, in circumstances where she and Alex did not have a good relationship, because of the manner in which Alex treated Ms Deak-Fabrikant. He recalled the conversation contained in his and Paul Grech's affidavit, and said that the relationship continued to deteriorate to the extent that four or five months after that conversation there was no communication between them at all; and

(e) for my assistance in examining the numerous photographs and videos in circumstances where there is controversy about dates, he believed that during his adolescence he was taller and more solid and mature looking than his peers.

281 Counsel for Paul Grech asked some questions regarding Ms Deak-Fabrikant's allegation that Stephen and/or Paul Grech deliberately allowed the Errol Street and Sanctuary Lakes properties to deteriorate and remain empty and untenanted. In relation to the Errol Street property, Stephen Grech gave evidence that the Errol Street property was predominantly purchased for the land, as the house was in disrepair when he bought it. He had plans to either develop Errol Street or rent it out after his siblings vacated the property in 2008, but these plans were put on hold when Ms Deak-Fabrikant lodged the caveat over the property.

282 In relation to the Sanctuary Lakes property, Stephen Grech gave evidence that while his father had obtained a certificate of occupancy, a lot of work was required to comply with the requirements of Sanctuary Lakes Resort Management. There was still a lot of work to be done internally, and landscaping plans still needed to be submitted to Sanctuary Lakes Resort Management for approval. At the time Ms Deak-Fabrikant lodged the caveats, they would have needed to invest about $60,000 to $80,000 to complete the works, and he decided to hold off after receiving advice that the dispute with Ms Deak-Fabrikant would be resolved within about a year. In hindsight, he wished that he had done those works so that he and Jelvie could have rented out the Sanctuary Lakes property.

283 Jelvie Grech swore an affidavit on 17 March 2014. She deposed that she was born in Dili, East Timor, and she and her family migrated to Australia in the early 1990s. She deposed that she worked part-time while at high school. She and Stephen met in March 1999, while she was in Year 12, and they began dating the following year. In February 2000, she commenced at RMIT University. She was successful in gaining a Hollingworth Cadetship, which paid for her university expenses and provided her with a weekly allowance of $120. She was able to save most of her income as she was living with her parents.

284 Jelvie Grech first met Paul Grech and Ms DeakFabrikant at the Altona property in March 2000 when they went to collect Paul to attend Stephen's graduation ceremony. When she was left alone with Ms DeakFabrikant in the kitchen, Ms DeakFabrikant made derogatory remarks about Paul's family, describing them as 'village people'. Ms DeakFabrikant did not attend the graduation ceremony.

285 Jelvie Grech deposed as to Stephen's travels overseas, her part-time work at Nando's and her sponsor company, Mayne Nickless, her engagement to Stephen and their engagement party in October 2001, and the cash gifts they received upon their engagement. She gave evidence about the events of January 2001, when Stephen Grech left the Altona property. She gave evidence that she commenced a second part-time job in February 2001, and exhibited PAYG payment summaries which showed that in the 2000/2001 financial year she earned over $14,000.

286 Jelvie Grech gave evidence about the purchase of the Speakmen Street property and the source of funds for that property, which was consistent with the evidence of Stephen Grech. Stephen, Jelvie, her mother Elysabeth and Jelvie's brother Chris moved to the Speakmen Street property in October 2001. The balance of the mortgage at that time was $250,000. She confirmed that she and Stephen made as many additional repayments as possible, which was facilitated by her mother's financial support in the two years she lived with them.

287 Jelvie Grech deposed that while she continued her studies, she went to work at Armaguard, which was subsequently acquired by Linfox, her current employer. She earned $26,999 in the 2002/2003 financial year over and above her cadetship allowance. She commenced full time employment after she graduated from university, and has worked there ever since, save for periods of maternity leave. Since 2004 she has been provided with a fully maintained company car. She exhibited her PAYG summaries for the period between 2005 and 2009.

288 Jelvie Grech rejected Ms DeakFabrikant's allegations that Paul Grech lent her and Stephen any money for the purchase of the Speakmen Street property. Any money Paul Grech provided them was a gift. She rejected Ms DeakFabrikant's allegations that Paul Grech did any renovations, repairs, landscaping and paving at the Speakmen Street property, the house being in near new condition when they moved in.

289 Jelvie Grech also gave evidence regarding her relationship with Ms Deak-Fabrikant and other relationships within the family. In paragraph 126 of her affidavit, Jelvie Grech deposed as follows:

Larissa made it clear from what she said and how she behaved both towards Stephen and me early in our relationship that she did not want any part of our life, nor was she, or was she going to be a constructive or positive person to have in our life.

290 Jelvie Grech gave evidence that, to the contrary, Stephen did not refuse to participate in Paul Grech's life. Stephen has always spoken highly of Paul and they are continually involved in each other's lives. Paul has attended most if not all of their celebrations and parties at the Speakmen Street property, and has visited regularly on other occasions, often alone, or with other members of the Grech family, but only once with Ms DeakFabrikant. Ms DeakFabrikant's son, Alex, was the best man at their wedding in 2003, but Ms DeakFabrikant was not invited and did not attend.

291 Jelvie Grech gave evidence that she met Ms DeakFabrikant on seven separate occasions in total between 2000 and 2007, including at George and Christine Grech's home, a birthday lunch for Alex Fabrikant in May 2006, and on the occasion of Paul's sixtieth birthday in August 2007. Ms DeakFabrikant visited the Speakmen Street property on one occasion, in 2006, when Paul Grech brought her along for a barbeque. She disputes Ms DeakFabrikant's allegations that she visited the hospital when her son Noah was born or that Ms DeakFabrikant had any role to play in his life.

292 Jelvie Grech also gave evidence as to her knowledge of the ownership of the Errol Street, Ballarat Road, and Sanctuary Lakes properties. In relation to the Ballarat Road property, she deposed that the purchase price was fully funded from an investment loan, with all mortgage repayments coming from their Viridian line of credit account. Paul Grech did not do any renovation or repair work at that property because none was required.

293 As for the Errol Street property, Jelvie Grech deposed that she could not recall when Stephen Grech told her about this property, but he always referred to it as his property, not Paul Grech's property, and she has never heard Paul Grech refer to it as his property. She saw Stephen visit there on a number of occasions when she and Stephen visited her brother at his home nearby, and from time to time Stephen told her he was going to Errol Street to perform maintenance on the property. After the property was vacated in 2007, Stephen Grech erected a new fence around the perimeter of the property, and has used it for business purposes since 2011. Stephen has told her about his plans for a commercial development on the property. All bills associated with the Errol Street property have been paid using their funds.

294 Jelvie Grech deposed that she believes Stephen Grech told her about the Sanctuary Lakes property between the time they started dating in March 2000 and when Stephen left the Altona property in January 2001. He told her Paul had purchased it as an investment property with funds Paul had invested and funds repaid to him by Joe Grech. From time to time Paul Grech asked Stephen Grech in her presence to pay bills for him, some relating to the Altona property and the Sanctuary Lakes property, and some relating to other personal expenses. Sometimes Paul would give Stephen cash to pay the bills, and sometimes he did not. Ever since she could remember, Stephen has paid Paul's mobile phone account. Since 4 January 2008, when the Altona property was transferred to Stephen, they have paid all the bills associated with the Altona property, and likewise for the Sanctuary Lakes property since September 2008.

295 Jelvie Grech gave the following evidence about the plans for the Sanctuary Lakes and Altona properties. She deposed, in summary, as follows:

(a) on the few occasions she has met Ms Deak-Fabrikant, she did not hear her say that she and Paul Grech were planning to retire to the Sanctuary Lakes property;

(b) she was told by Stephen and Paul Grech that the Sanctuary Lakes property was an investment property;

(c) she heard Stephen and Paul Grech discussing various options regarding what to do with the Sanctuary Lakes property once construction was complete. These included selling it, leasing it, Paul living in it, possibly with his mother, or Stephen and Jelvie living in it. She and Stephen rejected the latter proposal;

(d) she was present during a number of discussions since October 2001 between Paul and Stephen Grech regarding their plans for the Altona property. They discussed building some townhouses or units in the backyard, and splitting the house into two units; and

(e) Paul Grech and Stephen Grech discussed, in her presence, Paul Grech's plan to give the Altona property to Stephen Grech when they were ready to move forward with the development plans for the Altona property. This was consistent with what Stephen had previously told her.

Towards the end of 2007 Stephen was making enquiries with the bank about getting a loan for funds that he planned to use to develop Queen Street.

At that time, in my presence, Stephen made a telephone call to our bank broker, Nick Fiamengo. When Stephen got off the phone he told me Nick advised him we were able to borrow around $1,000,000 if we used Queen Street and Sanctuary Lakes as security against the loan. This was subject to Queen Street and Sanctuary Lakes being in our name.

Stephen told me he was going to call Paul and organise the transfer of Queen Street and Sanctuary Lakes.

On 4 January 2008 Paul came to Speakmen Street in the morning and left with Stephen. Paul and Stephen said they were going to the city to transfer Queen Street and Sanctuary Lakes. Later that day when I saw Stephen he said Paul transferred Queen Street to him but they did not transfer Sanctuary Lakes. Stephen said he and Paul still had not decided what they were going to do with Sanctuary Lakes.

On the 30 September 2008 Paul transferred Sanctuary Lakes in to my name.

At the time Paul transferred Sanctuary Lakes in to my name Stephen had three investment properties in his name already, Errol Street, Ballarat Road and Queen Street. Stephen told Paul in my presence it was better to balance out our property portfolio for the purposes of tax benefits and borrowing money from the bank.

Before Paul transferred Sanctuary Lakes to me he said it was the right thing to do given the amount of work Stephen had put in to the property.

297 Jelvie Grech exhibited a number of documents to her affidavit which were mainly documents showing the income she earned in the period since she had been living with Stephen, and photographs of family, friends, events and celebrations. During the course of the hearing on 30 October 2014, she corroborated the evidence of Stephen Grech regarding the condition of the Sanctuary Lakes property and their decision to hold off completing the works until this proceeding was finalised.

298 Paul Grech also relied upon the evidence of his brother, Joseph ('Joe') Grech.

299 In his affidavit sworn on 18 March 2014, Joe Grech deposed, in summary, as follows:

(a) his family background and his knowledge of Paul Grech's family and living arrangements;

(b) Paul Grech worked for him from time to time in his tiling business, and later in his clothing company, Columbia Jeans, although Paul was off work for several years following a motorcycle accident in 1988;

(c) in late 1991 Paul Grech told him he had separated from his wife Gail and asked if Joe knew someone who could assist him with his family law matters. In Paul's presence, Joe Grech called Tony Lava, a friend of his who had his own law firm Glenisters, who agreed to assist Paul Grech. He believed Paul Grech engaged Tony Lava in January 1992;

(d) during the period of Paul and Gail Grech's divorce and property settlement, he saw Paul several times a week;

(e) about six months later, Paul Grech told him about concerns he had with the amount Glenisters was charging him. Not long after, Paul Grech told him he had disengaged Glenisters. About six to twelve months after that time he arranged for Paul Grech and Tony Lava to meet at his business premises to resolve Paul Grech's outstanding account, which they did;

(f) at around the time Paul Grech disengaged Glenisters, approximately July 1992, Paul Grech told him of a woman he had met at Court and had become friends with, identifying her as 'Larissa';

(g) by July 1992, Paul and Stephen Grech had moved to the Altona property;

(h) for at least two years from mid-1991, Paul Grech worked at Columbia Jeans as a material layer and cutter;

(i) he cannot recall when Paul or Stephen Grech told him Ms Deak-Fabrikant was living at the Altona property, but he knew it was after Paul and Gail were divorced, and after Paul and Stephen had moved to the Altona property. At the time of the meeting between Paul Grech and Tony Lava referred to above, Paul told him that Ms Deak-Fabrikant had moved out of the Altona property, and on another occasion that Paul Grech told him that he was doing some work on Ms Deak-Fabrikant's flat;

(j) he deposed that he and Paul Grech had various business dealings with each other since the 1960s. Paul Grech has assisted him by working in his businesses and lending him funds to establish and operate those businesses. Over a thirty year period Paul Grech lent him money on various occasions, including about $60,000 from the sale of his property in Ramu Parade in 1993. He saw details of the loans and repayments in Paul's notebook and estimates that from the early 1980s to the late 1990s he repaid approximately $200,000 to Paul. By 1999, he had repaid all the money he owed to Paul to that date;

(k) he was aware that, in about 1995, Stephen Grech went to live at Bell Street, Coburg with his grandmother (Joe's mother), as he saw him from time to time when he visited his mother, ate dinner there on occasions, and collected Stephen from and dropped him off at the house;

(l) between 1992 and 1999, he visited the Altona property approximately five times. He gave evidence about conversations he had with Paul about their living arrangements. He deposed that he has never been invited to any family celebrations at the Altona property since Ms Deak-Fabrikant lived there, and has never met any of her family. He saw her on three to five occasions with Paul at other houses. Paul attended his daughter's wedding in September 2007 alone, and he personally has not seen Ms Deak-Fabrikant since the late 1990s;

(m) he deposed as to his knowledge of Paul Grech's purchase and development of the Sanctuary Lakes property; and

(n) he deposed that in 2010 he had three telephone conversations with Ms Deak-Fabrikant, during one of which she was abusive and threatening.

300 Joe Grech was subject to extensive crossexamination by Ms DeakFabrikant, during which he gave the following evidence, in summary:

(a) his affidavit was written by Stephen Grech based upon answers he provided to his questions, and he read through the affidavit as it was being prepared;

(b) Paul Grech worked in his tiling and clothing businesses in the period after his motorcycle accident in 1988, during which time Paul separated from his wife Gail in late 1991. He has no documents which prove that Paul Grech worked in his business;

(c) during this period he saw Paul and Stephen Grech regularly, at his home, at his mother's home, and at his farm;

(d) he believed a photograph taken of Stephen Grech was taken in about 1992, judging from the ages of his own children in the photograph;

(e) he confirmed his affidavit evidence that Paul Grech asked for his assistance in finding a lawyer, and he believed Paul engaged Tony Lava in January 1992. About six months later, Paul Grech told him that he was unhappy about being overcharged;

(f) he was certain that Paul Grech told him about meeting Ms DeakFabrikant in July 1992;

(g) he has only met Ms DeakFabrikant five times in his life;

(h) he rejected the suggestion that he and Paul Grech were not on good terms, and gave evidence that he believed that Ms Deak-Fabrikant was the one who did not want Paul Grech's family to visit him, and that Ms Deak-Fabrikant told him on the last occasion he visited the Altona property that she did not want Stephen or James Grech at the Altona property.

(i) Paul told him that he was never going to marry Ms DeakFabrikant, and Joe Grech told him 'this one is bad for you';

(j) he gave evidence that he and his brother lent each other money. He had no documentary records, but he was present when Paul made notes in his note book. When Paul sold a house Paul lent him $60,000;

(k) during an unspecified period he would see Stephen Grech at his mother's house twice a week;

(l) he visited the Sanctuary Lakes property on between ten and twenty occasions; and

(m) Ms DeakFabrikant did not attend his daughter's wedding or other family functions.

301 Jelvie Grech's mother, Elysabeth Pangalila, also gave evidence. In her affidavit sworn on 14 March 2014 she deposed, in summary, as follows:

(a) she met Stephen Grech in late 1999. He told her that he had finished university, and was working with Paul Grech part time in his bathroom renovation business, and she mentioned how he would sometimes visit her home in his work clothes;

(b) she and her sister hosted a large engagement party for Stephen and Jelvie in October 2000, where she and many of her family gave monetary gifts known as 'red pocket';

(c) Stephen came to live with her family at their flat in Flemington in early 2001. Stephen told her he had problems with Ms Deak-Fabrikant as they didn't get along, and she made it unpleasant for him to live at the Altona property. Jelvie was working and studying at the time;

(d) not long after Stephen moved in, he and Jelvie told her that they wanted to buy a house, and that she and her son could live with them there. She supported their decision, and she told them that she would support them as much as she could financially afford. She worked full time as a pastry maker, and earned approximately $500 per week in 2001;

(e) she supported them financially both before and after their move to the Speakmen Street property. She paid for all utilities and groceries while they lived at the flat, and for the two years she and her son lived at the Speakmen Street property. She estimated she contributed approximately $15,000 per year to their household, and she told them she wanted them to concentrate upon reducing their mortgage as quickly as possible;

(f) she deposed that the house at Speakmen Street was in excellent, near new condition, and did not require any renovation work. Paul Grech did not do any paving, gardening or work on the house;

(g) she has attended all major family events that Stephen and Jelvie have hosted at the Speakmen Street property since October 2001. Ms Deak-Fabrikant attended none of those occasions. She has never met Ms Deak-Fabrikant;

(h) she moved to a property in Errol Street, Braybrook purchased by her son Chris in 2005 and has lived there ever since. The house is fifty to one hundred metres from the Errol Street property. She always understood from discussions with Paul and Stephen Grech that the Errol Street property was Stephen's investment property; and

(i) she has never seen Ms Deak-Fabrikant with her grandson Noah and knows of no relationship between them.

302 Finally, Paul Grech relied upon an affidavit sworn by his sister-in-law, Christine Grech. In her affidavit sworn on 18 March 2014, she deposed, in summary, as follows:

(a) to her family background and living arrangements;

(b) in around March 1991, she and her husband George visited Paul and Gail Grech at the Altona Meadows property. Gail Grech was in the process of moving furniture and other items into a removal truck;

(c) after his separation, Paul Grech visited their home frequently, sometimes bringing Stephen with him. On one occasion, in November 1991, Paul told her in Stephen's presence that he had asked Stephen to live with him and Stephen had agreed. During the period from November 1991 to August 1992, Paul and Stephen visited their home frequently, on most weekends, and attended their Christmas street party in December 1991. Paul made no mention of Ms Deak-Fabrikant during this period;

(d) in early to mid-1992, Paul told her he and Stephen were moving to the Altona property as a result of the property settlement between him and Gail Grech. She and George visited them at the Altona property about a week after they moved in. The Altona property was in good condition, and the front and back gardens were fully landscaped;

(e) in around May 1992, Paul Grech brought Stephen to her house for maths tutoring. She tutored Stephen for approximately two to three months. He told her he was enrolled to commence at Westbourne Grammar in July 1992;

(f) she first met Ms Deak-Fabrikant at her birthday party in June 1992. Her actual birth date is 23 June. Paul introduced Ms Deak-Fabrikant to her as his friend, who he had met at Court. Ms Deak-Fabrikant told her Paul was a friend she had met at Court, and she had recently gone through a divorce. They did not behave in a 'romantic' way towards each other;

(g) she met Ms Deak-Fabrikant for the second or third time at her daughter's first communion on 15 August 1992. It was on this occasion or on another occasion about a month or two after her birthday party in June 2002 that Paul Grech told her that Ms Deak-Fabrikant had moved to the Altona property. Ms Deak-Fabrikant told her that she had to leave where she was staying and Paul had helped her;

(h) not long after she met Ms Deak-Fabrikant in June 1992, and as they got to know each other, Ms Deak-Fabrikant told her in some detail about her personal life, financial situation and health. Ms Deak-Fabrikant told her that she had been through lengthy and expensive divorce proceedings with her exhusband, following which she had no choice but to declare bankruptcy. Ms Deak-Fabrikant vented her anger and frustration about her divorce on many occasions;

(i) she knew that Ms Deak-Fabrikant had moved out from the Altona property at some time, because Paul and Stephen told her that, and when she and George visited the Altona property Ms Deak-Fabrikant was usually not there. She was at the Altona property at her son's sixth birthday party in July 1993, but she was not certain whether she was living there or visiting there. On one occasion, when she was visiting the Altona property, Paul said to George in her presence that he had to drop something off at Ms Deak-Fabrikant's residence, and asked him to come for a drive;

(j) by around mid-1994, Ms Deak-Fabrikant resumed accompanying Paul to her house. They attended most of their family functions and events. They saw each other two to three times a month;

(k) she was aware that when Stephen commenced year eleven at a high school in Coburg, Stephen lived with her mother-in-law in Coburg;

(l) after Paul and Ms Deak-Fabrikant returned from their holiday in 1996, Ms Deak-Fabrikant told her that her son Alex and his fiancée were moving to the Altona property to save money. She made their wedding cake at Ms Deak-Fabrikant's request, but was not invited to their wedding. She has had little to do with Alex and has seen him about seven or eight times since August 1992. He never attended any of their family functions;

(m) she did not consider that Ms Deak-Fabrikant had a close relationship with Paul Grech's other children, James and Kathy;

(n) her early recollection of Ms Deak-Fabrikant's relationship with Stephen Grech was that it was amicable. She learnt that the relationship between them had broken down sometime between 1996 and 1998 when she and George visited the Altona property with their eight children and Stephen told them he was not allowed to eat;

(o) she described her observations of Paul's relationship with each of his three children;

(p) she has met Ms Deak-Fabrikant's daughter Stella once, her brothers approximately four times, and Ms Deak-Fabrikant's mother seven times;

(q) she described what she knew of Stephen's employment;

(r) she has attended many family functions hosted by Stephen and Jelvie at the Speakmen Street property, and does not ever recall seeing Ms Deak-Fabrikant there. Ms Deak-Fabrikant was not at their wedding in March 2003;

(s) both Paul and Stephen openly discussed the Errol Street property as being Stephen's house, including in Ms Deak-Fabrikant's presence; and

(t) she was present during discussions where Paul Grech talked about the Sanctuary Lakes property. Ms Deak-Fabrikant was rarely involved, and when she did she was negative about it. Ms Deak-Fabrikant told Paul in her presence that she had no interest in moving to Sanctuary Lakes.

303 Christine Grech gave the following evidence regarding her perceptions of the relationship between Paul Grech and Ms Deak-Fabrikant:

After Paul and Larissa came back from their holiday overseas I noticed Larissa gradually started to change her attitude towards Paul. Before they went away she usually praised Paul and spoke highly of him.

When Larissa and Paul arrived back Larissa started, although not right away, to be critical and argumentative of and with Paul. Larissa argued with Paul openly in front of George, me and other family members.

On one occasion when Larissa was having a conversation with me she referred to Paul as her 'husband'. George was present and heard what Larissa said. George said to Larissa 'He is not your husband, I never attended a wedding. Where is your ring?'

Larissa did not show us any rings and got upset. Larissa started an argument with Paul for not marrying her. This was in front of George and me at dining table. It was awkward and I could see Paul was embarrassed.

Gradually, after the occasion where Larissa was at my home and argued with Paul about not marrying her, Paul and Larissa gradually reduced the amount of times they visited my home.

On one occasion around the time Larissa argued with Paul at our home about marriage, we were given conditions by Paul that Larissa did not want us to visit Queen Street unless we rang first and made an appointment. Prior to this we were welcome to drop into Queen Street any time, as Paul and Larissa were to my home.

304 Christine Grech also gave evidence about her knowledge and observations of Ms Deak-Fabrikant's relationship with Stephen Grech. Stephen told her and George he was not allowed to eat any food unless he bought and prepared it himself. She rarely saw Stephen and Ms Deak-Fabrikant communicate. Stephen never attended her house with Ms Deak-Fabrikant.

305 Over the years she saw less and less of Ms Deak-Fabrikant. Paul started visiting their home with Stephen, or occasionally Kathy or James. She deposed as to an incident in 2002 where Ms Deak-Fabrikant telephoned her home when Paul and Stephen Grech brought a table tennis table for her children to use. She threatened to call the police if it was not returned.

306 She saw Ms Deak-Fabrikant on only two occasions after this incident: the first at her daughter's birthday party in December 2002, and on another occasion in mid2003, which was the last time she ever saw her. Ms Deak-Fabrikant contacted her again after Paul Grech left the Altona property to ask her for some photos she had of her, Paul and her children. She refused, and Ms Deak-Fabrikant got angry and hung up. Ms Deak-Fabrikant called on several other occasions but the call usually ended in an argument.

307 Christine Grech exhibited a number of photographs in her affidavit, including a photograph of Stephen Grech with her children and other family members said to have been taken in late 1991, photographs of her daughter's first communion on 15 August 1992, which was the second or third time she met Ms Deak-Fabrikant, a photograph of her son's birthday party at the Altona property in July 1993, where Ms Deak-Fabrikant was present, a photograph of Stephen's birthday party at the Altona property in October 1993 (Ms Deak-Fabrikant was not present in any photographs taken on that day), and a photograph taken at her daughter's birthday party in December 2002, at which Ms Deak-Fabrikant was present. During the course of the hearing on 30 October 2014, she gave evidence in response to questions from me about how she was able to identify the dates and occasions upon which these photographs were taken.

308 As is apparent from the factual disputes between the parties and the summary of the evidence in these reasons, the credibility of the parties and the witnesses called on their behalf is critical to the resolution of the issues in dispute in the proceeding, in particular:

(a) where the parties lived at various times and for what reasons;

(b) whether there had been an agreement between Paul Grech and Ms Deak-Fabrikant that they would share their resources and build their assets together;

(c) whether Paul Grech ever promised Ms Deak-Fabrikant that he held a half share interest in the Altona property, the Errol Street property, and/or the Sanctuary Lakes property on trust for her;

(d) the true beneficial ownership of the Errol Street, the Speakmen Street, and the Ballarat Road properties;

(e) the extent to which Ms Deak-Fabrikant had an active role in supporting and parenting Stephen Grech during his adolescence and young adulthood, which in turn impacts upon the extent to which Ms Deak-Fabrikant's nonfinancial contributions ought to be recognised in the outcome of this proceeding; and

(f) whether Paul Grech and/or Stephen Grech assaulted Ms Deak-Fabrikant, and the consequences of any such assaults.

309 Taken in isolation, some of these issues, such as the actual duration of the relationship, would not have a significant impact upon the outcome of the proceeding. However, if the conflicts of evidence are all resolved in Ms Deak-Fabrikant's favour, then she would be entitled to a half interest in three properties valued at a total of around $1.5 million, an unspecified interest in a further two properties, and damages for assault and waste (although there is insufficient evidence to quantify any damages for waste). If the conflicts in the evidence are largely resolved against her, all that she would be entitled to would be a cash award recognising her relatively modest financial and nonfinancial contributions to the Altona property and the household.

310 It is in the above context that issues of credit loom large. A number of matters upon which the parties have given conflicting evidence are not matters where any differences can be explained by faulty recollection or mistake, at least on the part of the parties themselves. While one would not expect people to recall precise dates of when certain events occurred twenty years or more ago, human nature is such that usually people generally do recollect where they lived and when, who they lived with, where they went to school, decisions made about significant financial matters, such as gifts and loans and the purchase and sale of properties, whether they made or received proposals of marriage and acted upon them, and the nature and quality of their domestic and personal relationships.

311 Counsel for Paul Grech, and Stephen and Jelvie Grech, submitted in the strongest possible terms that Ms Deak-Fabrikant is so lacking in credibility that I should not believe her evidence where it is challenged by others, and should approach any unchallenged evidence with caution unless it is corroborated by documentary or other independent evidence.

312 I largely accept these criticisms of Ms Deak-Fabrikant's evidence, and, with some qualifications, the submissions made about the partisan nature of the evidence given by most of the lay witnesses called on Ms Deak-Fabrikant's behalf. In particular, the following matters, including the way in which she conducted her case, caused me to take an adverse view of Ms Deak-Fabrikant's credibility:

(a) her aggressive and argumentative approach to crossexamination, particularly when confronted with inconvenient facts and documents. This is to be contrasted with the generally calm and articulate manner in which she conducted herself when she held the floor;

(b) she constantly asked leading questions of her witnesses, although she did to some extent refrain from doing so after my warning that if she continued to do so I would not find their evidence to be of any great assistance. I accept to some extent her selfrepresented status may have contributed to her tendencies in that regard;

(c) her constant objections to relevant questions directed at her witnesses in crossexamination, and her constant interruption to their answers, particularly when they appeared to be about to answer in a manner which might adversely affect her case. Indeed, I believe that her decision to withdraw her reliance upon the evidence of Stella Fabrikant, given the timing of that withdrawal and the subject matter of the questions at that time, was motivated not by a desire to protect her daughter from the stress of cross-examination, but by her concerns about what might unfold were Stella to give accurate evidence;

(d) her allegations that documents inconsistent with her case were either forged or were obtained through bribery and corruption, that the evidence of others (for example police officers and Jelvie's mother) was fabricated, and that the solicitors for Paul Grech and, possibly even Court staff, had been involved in the disappearance of her discovered documents;

(e) her explanation that some of her behaviour, including a furious outburst in Court during a short adjournment, could be attributable to her suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder by reason of the dramatic circumstances of her departure from the Soviet Union, notwithstanding there is no reference in Dr Kaplan's records to her suffering from, or being treated for such a disorder;

(f) her doctoring and removal of exhibits and discovered documents such as photographs and subsequent false evidence about her conduct in that regard, even in the face of observations made by me as to what I could see occurring at the Bar table from my position on the Bench;

(g) her delay in discovering and producing patently relevant documents, such as receipts for expenditure and bank statements during the period of the relationship. It may be that was due in part to the absence of legal representation. However, her bank statements for the period of the relationship were only produced to the Court on the twenty second day of trial, notwithstanding her earlier evidence (before the trial was adjourned part-heard) that she no longer had any bank statements in her possession, as they had probably been removed from the Altona property by Paul Grech shortly after the separation. Certain portions of the bank statements were obscured, and curiously, despite the first bank statement in time being evidently not the first in a series,[20] she could produce no bank statement prior to December 1994, despite clearly having a practice of retaining all personal documents, as is evident from the volume and nature of documents produced to the Court as exhibits to her primary affidavit or during the course of her reexamination;

(h) her very late explanations of certain matters, such as her residence at the Elsternwick property, and the impact of menopause upon what she might have told Dr Kaplan; and

(i) her persistent refusal to accept seemingly uncontroversial but inconvenient facts if they contradicted her case theory.

313 A prime example of the above is the evidence regarding Stephen and Jelvie's engagement party in October 2000. In their affidavits, Stephen and Jelvie Grech and Jelvie's mother gave evidence that Jelvie's mother and aunt hosted an engagement party at which they received substantial cash gifts in 'red pockets', consistent with Jelvie's Chinese ethnic heritage.

314 Stephen and Jelvie Grech's evidence regarding the engagement party was given to support their contention that by the time they purchased the Speakmen Street property they had accumulated substantial savings. Ms Deak-Fabrikant's response was to deny that the engagement or the engagement party ever took place, not only, I infer, to contest the suggestion that they had substantial savings, but because the holding of the engagement party without her being informed or invited was inconsistent with her evidence that there was no estrangement between her and Stephen Grech prior to his departure from the Altona property in 2001. Another example is where she refused to accept that references in her bank statements to 'Deposit Dividend Telstra Dividend' could lead the Court to draw an inference that she owned Telstra shares.

315 Ms Deak-Fabrikant gave evidence which on occasion not only contradicted the evidence given by other witnesses on her behalf, but also other evidence given by her. For example, while she maintained that she never left the Altona property after moving there in 1991, her son Alex gave evidence that he visited her in an apartment near Ripponlea (which is in Hotham Street, Elsternwick). She maintains that the physical injuries suffered by her as a result of the assault upon her by Paul Grech mean she is unable to maintain her house and garden without assistance: her niece Katya Dewan says she is an immaculate housekeeper. She said that she could not name or call the neighbours who provided her with assistance because they were afraid of the consequences: Gaetano Armeri denied being afraid of Paul Grech and appeared to have been genuinely surprised to have been asked such a question.

316 As for contradictions in her own evidence, Ms Deak-Fabrikant denied having acted aggressively towards Paul Grech and the police on 30 September 2008, but later said she was under the effects of medication and was frightened and provoked by their conduct during a late night visit. In her primary affidavit, she said she had to make additional contributions to household expenses between 1999 and 2004 because Paul Grech did not work because he was too busy constructing the house on the Sanctuary Lakes property, notwithstanding the uncontradicted evidence that construction did not commence until 2004, five years after the purchase of the Sanctuary Lakes property. However, she also contends that between 2001 and 2007, Paul Grech was earning a substantial cash income (in the order of $100,000 per annum) and diverting a substantial proportion of that income to Stephen and Jelvie Grech to fund the purchase of and pay off the mortgage over the Speakmen Street property.

317 The issue of the evidence regarding Dr Kaplan's records requires particular attention. Ms Deak-Fabrikant was well within her rights to object to the references to Dr Kaplan's records in Paul Grech's affidavit.

318 She was also well within her rights to object to the inspection of the documents produced by Dr Kaplan and the OPP upon subpoena, and indeed, if she had not waived her rights to confidentiality in Dr Kaplan's records by attempting to rely upon a report prepared by him, those objections would probably have been upheld.

319 However, once the argument had been argued and lost, it was necessary for Ms Deak-Fabrikant to engage with the matters referred to in Dr Kaplan's records. I accept that during the course of crossexamination her responses were affected by her anger and upset about their admission into evidence. However, in her reexamination, she maintained her denial of their accuracy, and gave evidence that directly contradicted Dr Kaplan's own evidence regarding his note taking habits.

320 On the resumed hearing on 31 August 2015, when Ms Deak-Fabrikant was given leave to make submissions, counsel for Ms Deak-Fabrikant submitted that Ms Deak-Fabrikant's conduct during the course of the trial could be largely explained by not only the difficulties and stresses experienced by her as a selfrepresented litigant, but also by her distress and offence at the conduct of the Grech parties in denying and denigrating the relationship between her and Paul Grech. In his written outline of submissions he stated that:

the conduct of the trial and the reactions of Deak-Fabrikant to the manner of the case are consistent with the offence she has taken to the imputation that approximately 17 years of her life was in fact not real and the relationship with Paul Grech really did not exist. In those circumstances her evidence and its passion is not surprising.

321 During the course of the hearing on 31 August 2015 counsel for Ms Deak-Fabrikant conceded that it is apparent from the transcript during the course of the trial that Ms Deak-Fabrikant was uncooperative, but that this was an understandable reaction to the aggressive questioning of counsel for Paul Grech, in particular the repeated suggestions that she was lying, with it being apparent that counsel was deliberately trying to upset her.

322 I have no doubt that the refusal of Paul Grech and Stephen Grech to acknowledge the relationship until the filing and service of their affidavits in March 2014 was a source of vexation to Ms Deak-Fabrikant, and at least in part the reason why Ms Deak-Fabrikant introduced into evidence so many photographs, DVDs and other material to demonstrate that they were in a long term domestic relationship and were recognised as such by friends and family. However, it was made clear to her on a number of occasions during the course of the trial that the main dispute was about the duration and quality of the relationship, not its existence. Further, the coincidence between the outbursts, interruptions and arguments and the adducing of unfavourable evidence indicates that these were not purely emotional responses to a difficult situation. Further, while her emotional responses might have influenced the manner in which Ms Deak-Fabrikant conducted herself during the course of the trial, and partially excuse or at least explain her behaviour, it cannot excuse or explain why she on occasions gave evidence which was inconsistent with her own earlier evidence, inconsistent with evidence given by witnesses called on her behalf, and inconsistent with contemporaneous documents.

323 I accept that counsel on occasions took a somewhat combative approach to his crossexamination of Ms Deak-Fabrikant, with the effect of upsetting Ms Deak-Fabrikant. I do not accept the submission that this was a deliberate tactic on his part. As I noted on a number of occasions during the course of the trial, if counsel's instructions were that Ms Deak-Fabrikant or her witnesses were not telling the truth in relation to relevant factual issues, it was his duty to put those instructions, in order to be in a position to make submissions about the factual findings I ought to make at the conclusion of the trial. Again, while Ms Deak-Fabrikant's volatile conduct was at times explicable by her being upset with the tone and content of crossexamination, this only explains the manner in which she responded to questions, not the content of those responses.

324 As for the other witnesses called by Ms Deak-Fabrikant, I consider that Mr Felix Deak, Mr Yanosh Bronshtein, and Mr Gernot Huth were not only partisan witnesses, but that they were not witnesses of truth.

325 Each demonstrated a willingness to accept whatever Ms Deak-Fabrikant put to them, and at best, they were recklessly indifferent to the truth. Each maintained that they were certain the relationship between Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Paul Grech commenced in 1991. Their responses to questions as to why they were so sure about this was, in each case, a variant of 'I'm sure because I'm sure'. Each of Felix Deak and Yanosh Bronshtein consistently gave evidence which sought to push back events a year: this evidence was inconsistent with other, undisputed evidence, their own evidence, and the evidence of Katya Dewan. The statement prepared by Gernot Huth the day before he came to give evidence was self-serving in the extreme, and Mr Bronshtein's role in producing to the Court photographs with false notations is highly questionable. The same could be said for Felix Deak's compilation of a DVD with incorrect dates. I make further observations regarding the inconsistencies in their evidence in the section of these reasons where I deal with the issue of the duration of the relationship.

326 As for the other witnesses called by Ms Deak-Fabrikant, I consider that Helen Briffa and Gaetano Ameri were witnesses of truth, but could add little relevant evidence. I also have no reason to doubt the veracity of Mr Sverdlin's evidence, or the evidence of Dr Economidis (or Dr Kaplan's evidence, although, strictly speaking, he was not called by Ms Deak-Fabrikant). While Heather Gordon was to some extent a partisan witness, I accept that the evidence that she gave in Court accurately reflected her recollection of events. The same could be said for Katya Dewan. However, the reliability of her evidence was compromised by her relative youth at the time of the relevant events, and she freely conceded as such. While Greg and Anna Sapozhnikov were partisan witnesses, and Mrs Sapozhnikov was evasive regarding the contents of the conversations she had with Ms Deak-Fabrikant, I consider that her desire to avoid giving what might amount to unfavourable evidence regarding Ms Deak-Fabrikant did not necessarily compromise the veracity of her other evidence.

327 As for Alex Fabrikant, while I accept that much of his affidavit evidence was derived from what his mother told him, and contained errors and possibly falsehoods, I consider that, despite not having the advantage of seeing him in person, and despite his often truculent demeanour while giving evidence, that while he wanted to assist his mother, he did not deliberately seek to mislead the Court. I accept that the apparent evasiveness of some of his evidence was as much due to his unreliable memory as due to anything else. It may well be that he was not as adequately prepared for trial as others, given his absence overseas.

328 Accordingly, I accept that where there are disputes regarding critical factual matters, I should approach the evidence of Ms Deak-Fabrikant and the witnesses called on her behalf, especially when it directly contradicts the evidence relied upon by the Grech parties, with a great deal of caution. However, that is not to say that I would uncritically and unreservedly accept all of the evidence relied upon by the Grech parties, particularly given that I have not had the benefit of seeing all of the witnesses being crossexamined.

329 Counsel for Ms Deak-Fabrikant submitted that 'it is clear on the face of the material that some of the claims of the Grech's are concocted, reconstructed, and fanciful.' I consider that is a significant overstatement, as was his statement during the course of the hearing on 31 August 2015 that their conduct was part of a deliberate and intentional plan to ensure that Ms Deak-Fabrikant would receive nothing.

330 However, while I have not had the advantage of seeing all of the witnesses crossexamined, I do consider there is need for some caution in evaluating some of the evidence of Paul, Stephen and Jelvie Grech. While I have no reason to believe that they have told deliberate falsehoods regarding the key issues in the proceeding, there are some issues, such as the circumstances in which the transfer of the Sanctuary Lakes property was effected, which cause me concern, and I accept that they have not been entirely full and frank about the financial assistance provided by Paul Grech to Stephen and Jelvie Grech over time, and the circumstances in which Paul Grech and Ms Deak-Fabrikant resumed their relationship in 1994. Further, I consider that they have sought to underplay the contributions made by Ms Deak-Fabrikant to the household and the Altona property, and to take every opportunity to cast Ms Deak-Fabrikant in a poor light. I also accept that Stephen Grech had a substantial role in preparing the evidence. That is not necessarily a criticism: the affidavits are comprehensive and well organised. But Paul Grech's affidavit is clearly not in his own words. That said, his credibility was not materially disturbed by the hours of crossexamination which did take place, and he was disarmingly frank when I asked him about the reasons for the transfer of the Sanctuary Lakes property to Jelvie Grech.

331 Further, the veracity of Joe Grech's evidence was not seriously disturbed on crossexamination, and despite her relatively brief appearance at trial, I unreservedly accept Christine Grech as a witness of truth. Her demeanour impressed me, and I note that in her affidavit she was very careful not to depose to matters as a matter of certainty where she was not certain. I am a little surprised that her husband, George Grech, and Paul's mother, Helen Scerri, were not called as witnesses, given that they could independently verify that George Grech visited Ms Deak-Fabrikant at the Elsternwick property, and that Stephen Grech lived with his grandmother. However, no submissions were made on behalf of Ms Deak-Fabrikant that I should draw any adverse inferences for the unexplained failure to call these witnesses.

332 For completeness, while no submissions were made regarding the matter, which is understandable due to the way in which the trial proceeded, a number of the affidavits relied upon by the parties contained extensive hearsay evidence (see, for example, the affidavits of Jelvie Grech, Elysabeth Pangalila, and Joe Grech.) While I have noted that evidence of such a character is relied upon, I have not embarked upon the exercise of attempting to isolate and determine whether to exclude evidence on that basis, or evaluate its weight. I consider that to be a time consuming and rather arid exercise in all of the circumstances in the absence of any useful submissions on the issue.

333 I shall now turn to the determination of the issues in the proceeding.

334 All parties agreed that the de facto relationship ended in September 2008, but disagreed both as to the date that Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Mr Paul Grech met, and whether they lived together continuously and on a full time basis between 1991 and 1994.

335 Notwithstanding the submissions made by counsel for Ms Deak-Fabrikant at the hearing on 31 August 2015 that, given it was such a long relationship, the start date of the relationship is immaterial, I consider that the commencement date of the de facto relationship and the living arrangements of the parties generally between 1991 and 1994 are significant in the following respects:

(a) given that it is unlikely that the parties could be genuinely mistaken about such matters, the resolution of this issue must substantially undermine the credit of the party who fails to establish the correctness of their position;

(b) in particular, Ms Deak-Fabrikant asserts that on occasions between 1991 and 1993, Mr Grech made certain promises to her, and again in 1998 and 1999 regarding marriage and financial matters. Ms Deak-Fabrikant contends that she agreed to move to the Altona property on the strength of Paul Grech's promise that they would marry when his divorce was finalised;

(c) while the difference in the number of years concerned reflects a relatively small number of years having regard to the length of the domestic relationship (seventeen years in the case of Ms Deak-Fabrikant and fourteen years in the case of Mr Paul Grech), the finding as to which year the domestic relationship commenced, and the parties' living arrangements over time, does affect Ms Deak-Fabrikant's claim that she played a significant role in parenting Stephen Grech, given that he was thirteen years old in mid-1991 and sixteen years old in 1994, at which time, according to Stephen and Paul Grech, he was living with his grandmother in Coburg, where he remained until he was eighteen;

(d) similarly, Ms Deak-Fabrikant's claim for contributions to the economic and non-economic welfare of the family would be enhanced by a co-habitation date commencing in 1991, given that she contends she assisted Mr Paul Grech to clean up the Altona property before they moved in, paid school fees and other expenses associated with Stephen attending Westbourne Grammar, assisted in preparing the Ramu Parade property for sale, and used her income from her employment as a nurse to support the household. It is common ground that since December 1992, she has been in receipt of a disability pension; and

(e) if I were to find that Ms Deak-Fabrikant had been in continuous occupation of the Altona property between 1991 and 1994 this would similarly support her contentions regarding the nature of the relationship between her and Paul Grech, and her assertions that Paul Grech made certain promises to her regarding her interest in his properties, and that in 1993 they made an agreement to pool and share their resources for their mutual benefit.

336 I largely accept Paul Grech's version of events regarding how the parties met and the nature of the living arrangements of the parties between 1991 and 1994. Apart from the general observations I have made regarding the credibility of a number of the witnesses called by Ms Deak-Fabrikant regarding this issue, the proposition that Ms Deak-Fabrikant met Paul Grech in June 1992, that sometime after that she moved into the Altona property, and that for an unspecified period of time she lived in the Elsternwick property, is largely supported by the documents in evidence in the proceeding, and, on occasion, by the possibly unwitting evidence of witnesses called on Ms DeakFabrikant's behalf. The following evidence supports the proposition that the parties met in mid1992, not early to mid1991, as contended for by Ms Deak-Fabrikant, and that Ms Deak-Fabrikant lived away from the Altona property in 1993 and 1994:

(a) the documents filed in the Family Court proceeding are consistent with the fact that until the resolution of that proceeding in June 1992, Paul and Stephen Grech lived at the Altona Meadows property;

(b) Dr Kaplan's records, to the extent that they record what Ms DeakFabrikant told him about her living arrangements during this period, are consistent with Paul Grech's version of events;

(c) Alex Fabrikant gave evidence which was consistent with Ms DeakFabrikant having lived for a time at an apartment near Ripponlea in the early 1990s;

(d) the invoices for the work carried out by Paul Grech at the Elsternwick property in May 1993;

(e) Heather Gordon's evidence about when she was employed at her previous firm when she gave advice to Ms DeakFabrikant and Paul Grech was consistent with Paul Grech's version of events. She gave evidence that Ms Deak-Fabrikant told her she met Paul Grech at the Family Court when she was doing some work for herself after she left the employment of Wilmoth Field Warne, which was in early 1992;

(f) Ms Deak-Fabrikant's explanation for why Dr Slonim's letter of May 1993 referred to an Elsternwick address came very late in the trial, notwithstanding she had been aware of Paul Grech's version of events for some months;

(g) the absence of any documents showing Ms Deak-Fabrikant's address as being the Altona property prior to 1994 (save for her pension card, which was issued in December 1992, when both parties agree she was living at the Altona property) notwithstanding the fact that Ms Deak-Fabrikant retains vast quantities of documents stretching over long periods of time; and

(h) while this is by no means conclusive, the video of the party for Ms Deak-Fabrikant's mother said to have been made in October 1992 shows Paul apparently being introduced to Ms Deak-Fabrikant's family members, rather than them meeting again, which would be consistent with Paul Grech's evidence as to when the relationship started.

337 One of the most telling items of evidence consistent with Paul Grech's version of events was tendered by Ms Deak-Fabrikant herself during her crossexamination of Paul Grech. Exhibit 'CR' is a copy of a Complaint and Summons for an Intervention Order initiated by Gail Grech, Paul Grech's former wife, on 28 August 1991. While one might have doubts about some aspects of the veracity of the contents of the document, in that it contains a photograph of an injured woman who is clearly Kathy Grech, not Gail Grech, the complaint includes the following relevant matters:

(a) Paul Grech's address is described as "32 Polly Woodside Drive, Altona Bay"; and

I was married to the defendant 20 years, separating March this year. Since March I have been subjected to continual harassment by the defendant aimed at re-establishing our relationship. There were occasions whilst we were married that the defendant assaulted me and I am afraid this will occur again.

338 Presumably this evidence was introduced for the purpose of attacking Paul Grech's credibility, or (despite the absence of any notices to that effect) to establish some tendency upon his part to be violent to his female partners. However, while I am in no position to find that the allegations of Gail Grech are true in whole or in part, it seems to be extremely odd that if Paul Grech was involved in a close romantic relationship with Ms Deak-Fabrikant and was asking her to live with him with a view to marriage, he would be engaging in communication with his estranged wife for the purpose of effecting a reconciliation which was of a nature which would motivate her to take steps to obtain an intervention order.

339 On the other hand, there is evidence apart from the evidence of Ms Deak-Fabrikant herself that Paul Grech lived at the Altona property before June 1992. There are bank statements and other bank correspondence to Paul Grech addressed to him at the Altona property prior to June 1992, although it is possible that he did not change his address at the bank after the family moved from the Altona property to the Altona Meadows property (which according to Stephen Grech's evidence would have been in or around 1985). The application form for Stephen to enter Westbourne Grammar dated 25 February 1992 which refers to the address of the Altona property is at first somewhat baffling. However, a closer examination of the form shows that the handwritten date for the receipt of the payment of the deposit, which is in the same hand in which the address is completed, is 29 June 1992, which is consistent with Paul Grech's evidence that he moved to the Altona property in June 1992. Also, Paul Grech giving Ms DeakFabrikant a birthday card with an affectionate message on 2 August 1992 does not of itself establish that the relationship commenced much earlier than that time. Rather, it adds weight to my view that Paul Grech has on occasion sought to overplay the negative aspects of their relationship and underplay the positive aspects. The tone of the greeting card suggests that the relationship had developed a romantic flavour earlier than suggested by Paul Grech.

340 For completeness, to the extent that the witnesses called by Ms Deak-Fabrikant gave evidence that the relationship commenced in 1991, I do not accept the credibility of that evidence. In the case of Alex Fabrikant, he gave evidence that he discussed the contents of his affidavit with his mother while he was preparing it, in determining where he lived at what times. It was clear from his evidence under crossexamination, and the inconsistencies between his oral evidence and his affidavit, that his recollection of when he lived at certain places, and of key events in his relationship with his former partner was quite hazy. For example, in his affidavit he stated that he broke up with his former partner in November 1995, while in his oral evidence he said it was in May 1995. Not much turns on these inconsistencies, given the passage of time, and he did move from property to property quite frequently in the early part of the 1990s. However, his evidence, while not necessarily untruthful, was unreliable owing to his understandably vague recollection of events.

341 Similarly, while I accept that Katya Dewan was a witness of truth, and attempted to assist the Court as much as possible, the reliability of her evidence was affected by her relative youth at the time of the relevant events. As noted in the summary of her evidence, she stated in answer to a question unrelated to dates of events that she had not lived with Ms Deak-Fabrikant since 1991. That is consistent with her father's evidence regarding where the family lived after their arrival in Australia, and consistent with Ms Deak-Fabrikant moving to the Richmond apartment, not the Altona property, in 1991.

342 As for Felix Deak, his additional evidenceinchief was largely worthless owing to the leading nature of the questions put to him by Ms Deak-Fabrikant. He gave evidence that he spent his first Christmas in Australia at the Altona property in 1991, but he later gave evidence that he arrived in Australia on 19 December 1990. A DVD of various family occasions was shown to him, including footage of his father's funeral, which was dated 22 February 1993, when in fact their father died in February 1994. Whether the incorrect dating of the video footage was deliberate or inadvertent, it served to undermine the reliability of his evidence. He refused to accept that photographs showing the same people wearing the same clothes were taken on the same day.

343 The credibility of the evidence of Gernot Huth was somewhat shaken by the inconsistent evidence he gave about his diaries and papers and the manner in which Ms Deak-Fabrikant took him through his evidence. However, most telling was that while he gave evidence that he and/or his late wife spoke regularly to Ms Deak-Fabrikant, and he and his wife talked about her constantly, the only significant life event of Ms Deak-Fabrikant's that he could put a date to (apart from her divorce in late 1990 or early 1991) was the year that she met Paul. He did not, for example, recall which year her father died, or which year her son married. The statement prepared by him on the day before he attended Court was so clearly targeted towards supporting Ms DeakFabrikant's case that it lacked any credibility whatsoever.

344 The same could be said for Yanosh Bronshtein, Ms Deak-Fabrikant's other brother. After agreeing to bring in his photograph albums to Court, which would show the dates of photographs he extracted from those albums, he returned to Court and gave evidence that the albums had been destroyed. When he returned to Court, he brought with him a decorative photo frame which had belonged to his late mother, which contained among other photos, a photograph of Stephen Grech with the notation '1991' on the back. Only one other photograph in the frame had a notation of a date. While the notation was not his handwriting, I doubt very much, given the other evidence in the proceeding, that this notation was a contemporaneous notation made by his late mother.

345 However, Yanosh Bronshtein did, perhaps unwittingly, give some evidence consistent with Ms DeakFabrikant having moved into the Altona property in 1992 rather than 1991. He gave evidence that he and his family arrived in Australia in September 1989, where they stayed with Ms Deak-Fabrikant in a house in Mount Waverley. They lived there for seventeen to eighteen months (that is, until early 1991). Ms Deak-Fabrikant moved to Richmond a few months later (that is, she would have moved to Richmond some time in mid1991). Given the other evidence that Alex and his former partner lived with Ms Deak-Fabrikant at Richmond for at least six months, this evidence is more consistent with her moving to the Altona property in mid to late 1992 rather than mid to late 1991.

346 Given what I have found regarding the credibility of Ms Deak-Fabrikant and the witnesses Felix Deak, Yanosh Bronshtein, and Gernot Huth, there is not much which can be concluded from the photographs and DVDs relied upon by Ms Deak-Fabrikant in relation to the dates upon which certain events occurred, although I note Stephen Grech's submissions that there are no photographs of him with Ms Deak-Fabrikant's extended family which postdate 1997. However, I would make some observations regarding the photographic evidence. In the photograph of Stephen and other children said by Christine Grech to have been taken in late 1991,[21] Stephen looks considerably younger than he does in a photograph said by Ms Deak-Fabrikant to have been taken in August 1992,[22] which I agree appeared to have been taken on the same day as a photograph said by Ms Deak-Fabrikant to have been taken at the Altona property in 1995.[23] In fact, the photograph of Stephen Grech said by Yanosh Bronshtein to have been taken in 1991[24] shows an adolescent boy of a much more similar appearance to the photographs in exhibits 'LDF-13', 'LDF-22', and 'LDF-18', the latter two photographs said by Ms Deak-Fabrikant to have been taken in 1995,[25] than the boy shown in the exhibit to Christine Grech's affidavit, and older than Stephen looked in photographs said by Christine Grech to have been taken in 1993. In that regard I am satisfied by my brief observations of and questions of Christine Grech at the trial that she is a reliable witness, and I doubt that my views would have shifted as a result of crossexamination. Further, while the clarity of the photograph is not ideal, and Joe Grech's memory is a little unreliable, I consider that the boy in the photograph said to have been taken in 1992 looked significantly younger than the boy in the photographs said by Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Yanosh Bronshtein to have been taken in 1991 and 1992.

347 My observations regarding the photographic evidence in respect of the dates of photographs of Stephen Grech are said to have been taken lead me to draw two conclusions. First, there are no photographs in Ms DeakFabrikant's possession which show Stephen in 1991 and 1992 (because if there were such photographs, they would have been produced), and the evidence of Ms DeakFabrikant and Yanosh Bronshtein regarding these photographs was either deliberately false, or at best recklessly indifferent to the truth.

348 Finally, the notations made in Dr Kaplan's records are entirely consistent with Paul Grech's version of events regarding the living arrangements of the parties between 1991 and 1994, and Ms Deak-Fabrikant had no satisfactory explanation as to why these records were inaccurate records of what she told Dr Kaplan. While it may be that symptoms of menopause may have affected Ms Deak-Fabrikant's reporting of her moods and emotions to Dr Kaplan (although I cannot be certain that this was the case), I cannot see how any disorder of mood could affect her reporting of relatively mundane factual matters such as where she was living and where she had worked in the past and when.

349 The finding that the relationship commenced in around mid1992, and that Ms DeakFabrikant lived away from the Altona property for a year or more in 1993 and 1994 has a number of consequences for Ms Deak-Fabrikant's claims in this proceeding. First, it diminishes the credibility of her evidence and that of her witnesses in relation to other factual matters in dispute, but in particular her assertions that in 1991 Paul Grech promised to marry her, that in 1993 (when she was living away from the Altona property) she and Paul Grech agreed that they would pool all of their resources, that in 1998 they agreed to purchase an investment property together, and that Paul Grech declared that he held a halfshare of his properties on trust for her. Further, Ms Deak-Fabrikant's actual living arrangements between 1991 and 1994 seriously undermine her contention that she played a significant role in the education, welfare and upkeep of Stephen Grech during his years at secondary school, particularly given that there was no credible evidence led challenging Stephen Grech's contention that he lived with his grandmother while attending Coburg Preston Secondary College in 1994 and 1995, and there is documentary evidence that he attended that school during this period.

Was there ever an agreement between Ms Deak-Fabrikant and Paul Grech that they would share their assets and income for their common benefit?

350 As noted in paragraph 51, this issue was not a matter that was the subject of any pleading, nor was it included in the initial list of agreed issues, but emerged during the course of the evidence at trial.

351 During the course of cross-examination, Ms Deak-Fabrikant gave evidence that at around about the time that Paul Grech commenced his renovation business (in or about 1993), they had a series of discussions that, given that they planned to be married one day, they would pool all of their resources for their common benefit and their savings for their future, including their future retirement. This agreement is the foundation for Ms Deak-Fabrikant's contentions to the effect that, to the extent that Paul Grech spent money acquiring properties, paying for Stephen's travel expenses, cars and motor bikes, and contributing to the acquisition of properties by Stephen and/or Jelvie Grech, these payments were made from 'their' funds, not his funds. Similarly, to the extent that Paul Grech was spending time carrying out construction, renovation and repair works at the Sanctuary Lakes property and other properties such as the Errol Street property or the Speakmen Street property, that was the time that he could have been devoting to earning income for the benefit of them both.

352 Paul Grech's position is that no such agreement was ever made, that he and Ms Deak-Fabrikant, largely at his insistence, kept their finances entirely separate, and that he had repeatedly told her that everything he had was intended for his children. Accordingly, to the extent that he ever provided any financial or 'in kind' assistance to Stephen Grech or anyone else, he was entirely free to do so without the need to consult with or obtain consent from Ms Deak-Fabrikant.

353 The significance of this issue to the outcome of this proceeding is as follows:

(a) given that the parties have adopted entirely contradictory positions, the resolution of this issue will reflect adversely upon the credit of one party; and

(b) if such an agreement was made, it would be more likely that Paul Grech promised to hold his properties on trust for Ms Deak-Fabrikant.

354 I do not accept that there was ever an agreement between Ms DeakFabrikant and Paul Grech that they would share their resources, and that in return for Ms DeakFabrikant continuing to live with Paul Grech and contributing her resources and assistance to the family, Paul Grech would hold his properties on trust for her. I have made adverse findings as to the credibility of Ms Deak-Fabrikant's evidence, and therefore prefer Paul Grech's version of events where they are in conflict. Further, the maintenance of separate bank accounts during the course of the relationship, while not conclusive, is indicative of the fact that they kept their finances separate. Ms DeakFabrikant's lack of knowledge of the financial dealings between Paul Grech and Joe Grech is another indicator of this fact. Further, Ms DeakFabrikant's assertions in that regard are inconsistent with the statements recorded in Dr Kaplan's records regarding her concerns about her lack of financial security. If, in 2001 she truly believed that she was in effect the part owner of three properties (the Altona, Errol Street and Sanctuary Lakes properties), it would be unlikely that she would have been expressing such concerns at that time.

Does Paul Grech and/or Ms Deak-Fabrikant have a beneficial interest in the properties in Braybrook and Kensington?

355 Ms Deak-Fabrikant's claim is that Stephen Grech, and/or Stephen and Jelvie Grech, hold these properties on trust for Paul Grech, and, given that whatever assets were owned by Paul Grech were assets of the relationship, his interests in those properties were part of the pool of assets to be taken into account in adjusting the property interests of the parties.

356 In the case of the Errol Street property, Ms Deak-Fabrikant relied upon the fact that the contract of sale was executed by Paul Grech, and her evidence that he always referred to Errol Street as his property. She asserted Paul Grech carried out renovation works at the Errol Street property, and collected the rent from the tenants of the property. Ms Deak-Fabrikant also contends that Stephen Grech, who was at that time a full time student in receipt of Austudy, could not have possibly been in a financial position to fund the deposit and mortgage repayments upon the Errol Street property.

357 Ms Deak-Fabrikant's claims in respect of the Ballarat Road property are largely derivative of her claim in respect of the Errol Street property, on the basis that the purchase price of the Ballarat Road property was partially funded by way of a loan secured over the equity in the Errol Street property. She conceded at trial that her contention that Paul Grech paid for the stamp duty to acquire the Ballarat Road property was speculation on her part.

358 Ms Deak-Fabrikant's claim in respect of the Speakmen Street property is based upon an assertion that Stephen and Jelvie, with Stephen having only joined the workforce shortly before the purchase of this property and Jelvie still studying full time at university, could not have funded the deposit paid on the property and make sufficient payments upon the mortgage to fully discharge the mortgage within a six year period, as they did. She contends that Paul Grech must have made a substantial financial contribution to the acquisition of the Speakmen Street property and the discharge of the mortgage. Further, she gave evidence that Paul Grech told her he had loaned Stephen and Jelvie $38,000 for the purposes of acquiring the Speakmen Street property. She gave evidence that Paul Grech carried out substantial renovation works at the Speakmen Street property, which Jelvie Grech pointed out to her when she visited.

359 Paul Grech does not maintain any claim for any interest in any of these properties, and says that the only financial contribution he made to any of these properties was a gift (of an undisclosed size) to Stephen and Jelvie at the time of their engagement or wedding.

360 Stephen Grech says that the purchase of the Errol Street property was financed by funds he had withdrawn from a trust fund established for the benefit of him and his siblings and accumulated savings from his part-time employment. Stephen and Jelvie Grech contend that the deposit for the Speakmen Street property was raised from substantial gifts of cash made to them on the occasions of their engagement and their wedding, and the reason why they were able to repay the mortgage upon the Speakmen Street property so quickly was because Jelvie Grech's mother lived with them and paid all household expenses for a number of years, for the express purpose of enabling Stephen and Jelvie to devote the bulk of their earnings to repayment of the mortgage. Both Stephen and Jelvie held responsible and well-paying jobs, and as such were able to fund the repayment of the mortgage and the purchase of the Ballarat Road property.

361 Both Paul Grech and Stephen Grech deny that Paul Grech carried out any renovation or repair works at any of these properties.

362 The significance of this issue to the outcome of this proceeding largely concerns whether any or all of these properties ought to be included in the asset pool of the relationship. It is arguable that to the extent that Paul Grech has an equitable interest in any or all of these properties by reason of his financial contribution to the acquisition of these properties, then, notwithstanding the fact that he disclaims such an interest, the value of that equitable interest ought to be taken into account when determining the asset pool available for distribution. Further, Ms Deak-Fabrikant contends that Paul Grech promised her that he held the Errol Street property on trust for her.

363 It should be noted at the outset that there are significant legal and evidentiary hurdles faced by Ms Deak-Fabrikant in making good her contention that Paul Grech has an equitable interest in these properties. In effect, Ms Deak-Fabrikant is in a similar position to a trustee of Mr Paul Grech's bankrupt estate, or the executor of his will, faced with the task of contending that these properties formed part of Mr Grech's estate. First, given the principle of indefeasibility of title, the onus rests upon the party asserting that the registered proprietor of a property holds that property subject to the equitable interest of another.

364 In the current case, Ms Deak-Fabrikant must establish that Paul Grech made actual contributions to the purchase price of the properties in order to give rise to the presumption of a resulting trust in favour of Paul Grech.

365 However, even if it can be established that Paul Grech made contributions to the purchase price of the properties, given the fact that Stephen Grech is Paul Grech's son, Ms Deak-Fabrikant then faces the hurdle of the presumption of advancement, whereby there is generally a presumption that a payment made by a parent to a child, even an adult son, is a gift.[26] Of course, that presumption is capable of being rebutted, usually by evidence of the intentions of the parties, objectively determined with regard to the circumstances or character of the transaction. Such evidence would usually be that it was always intended by the parties that the recipient hold the asset concerned on trust for the person who made the payment. In circumstances where the person who made the payment is alive, and expressly disclaims any interest in the property concerned, it will be difficult for a party seeking to displace the presumption of advancement to do so. As stated by counsel for Paul Grech during the course of his final submissions on 31 August 2015, it is not for Stephen and Jelvie Grech to prove their interests in the properties, it is for Ms Deak-Fabrikant to disprove them.

366 During the course of the trial, Ms Deak-Fabrikant stated that it was her intention to use the bank statements of Paul Grech and Stephen and Jelvie Grech to show the flow of substantial funds from Paul Grech to his son and daughter-in-law. Owing to the orders I made on 30 October 2014 that the trial proceed in her absence, she did not do so, although she was provided with an opportunity to do so by way of submissions, which she failed to avail herself of, either on 3 December 2014 or 31 August 2015. Further, as the trial proceeded in her absence, she had no opportunity to crossexamine Paul, Stephen or Jelvie Grech, or Jelvie's mother, Elysabeth Pangalila, regarding these matters.

367 However, I doubt very much that the affidavit evidence of these parties and witnesses would have been substantially undermined by cross-examination, particularly the evidence regarding the source of funds for the purchase of the Speakmen Street property and the early repayments to the mortgage. There is documentary evidence in support of Stephen and Jelvie's contentions that while they were studying, they were also earning income. The transactions concerning these properties have been well documented and supported by financial records. Both Stephen Grech and Jelvie Grech present as determined, hardworking people, and I accept that their efforts have also been augmented by considerable family support.

368 Given that Ms Deak-Fabrikant had repeatedly emphasised that she would be able to establish that Paul Grech had provided substantial funds to Stephen and Jelvie Grech by analysing the bank statements of Stephen Grech and Paul Grech, I carefully reviewed the folder containing what I was told were all of the bank statements of Paul Grech and Stephen Grech which had been discovered in the proceeding. I did so keeping in mind Ms Deak-Fabrikant's contention that it was likely that any funds provided by Paul Grech to Stephen and Jelvie Grech would have been in the form of cash payments, so that it would not be possible to conduct a direct reconciliation between withdrawals from Paul Grech's bank accounts and deposits into Stephen Grech's bank accounts. That proved to be correct.

369 The discovery does not appear to include a complete record of Paul Grech's bank accounts. However, a review of the records provided reveals the following about Paul Grech's financial affairs:

(a) Paul Grech was in receipt of government benefits, presumably the sole parent's benefit, in 1992;

(b) his savings account for the period between 1997 and 2004 shows regular debits to pay the water bill for the Altona property, but no other regular bill payments for expenses relating to the Altona property, or the Errol Street property;

(c) between 1995 and 1998, Paul Grech and Stephen Grech held a joint bank account with varying balances, reaching a high of $41,191.02 in April 1996, and a low of $271.35 in November 1998;

(d) in the period between 1999 and 2001 Paul Grech held between $16,000 and $21,000 in a Westpac money market fund;

(e) in June 2001, Paul Grech closed a Commonwealth Bank account holding approximately $10,000. It is impossible for me to determine whether the notation 'given Stephen for deposit Spickman St' was made by Paul Grech or Ms Deak-Fabrikant, given Ms Deak-Fabrikant's practice of annotating discovered documents in a conclusionary manner; and

(f) between 1996 and 1999, Paul Grech held a term deposit which had an increasing balance over this period, from $51,000 in November 1996 to $151,182.52 in February 1999, when it was closed, consistent with Paul Grech's contention that funds were being repaid to him by Joe Grech which were ultimately used to fund the purchase of the Sanctuary Lakes property.

370 Turning to Stephen Grech's records, including his bank statements and the home loan statements, an analysis of the home loan statements shows that Stephen and Jelvie Grech were indeed paying down their mortgage quickly, being $27,064 ahead in their payments in December 2002 and $82,940.64 in December 2006. I have not undertaken a full reconciliation of the additional mortgage payments with the deposits to Stephen Grech's savings account, but it does appear that additional deposits to Stephen Grech's savings account was not the sole, or even the primary source of these additional repayments, noting however that Jelvie Grech's bank statements are not included in the discovered documents. Stephen Grech's bank statements show that there was a transfer of $63,995.16 from another account on 24 September 2001 and two cash deposits totalling $16,000, which were withdrawn on 3 October 2001, presumably to fund the purchase of the Speakmen Street property. In 2002 there were further cash deposits into Stephen Grech's bank account (of just over $50,000) which were promptly transferred to the home loan account. However, these ceased after 2002, and there were no substantial deposits to the account until a deposit of $5,000 in August 2005, with further deposits totalling nearly $30,000 in 2006. There were further substantial deposits in October 2007, including the $45,000 gift from Paul Grech, totalling nearly $90,000.

371 Stephen and Jelvie Grech in their evidence explain how they accumulated savings prior to their purchase of the Speakmen Street property, and directed as much money as they possible could towards repayment of their mortgage in the first year. The bank statements are consistent with this explanation. No explanation is provided regarding the source of the deposits in 2005 and 2006, only a portion of which appears to have been applied to the home loan. Of the $90,000 deposited in October 2007 (of which $45,000 was said to be a gift from Paul Grech), approximately $70,000 was directed towards repayment of the home loan.

372 Of course, Stephen and Jelvie Grech are not required to explain the source and purpose of any funds received by them over and above their earned income. In any event, even if Paul Grech was the source of all of the additional funds, given my findings regarding the absence of any agreement between Paul Grech and Ms Deak-Fabrikant to the effect that they would pool their resources for their mutual benefit, Paul Grech was free to provide any assistance to Stephen and Jelvie Grech as he saw fit, without the consent of Ms Deak-Fabrikant. No application is made to the effect that the gift of $45,000 in October 2007 be set aside on the basis that it was made to defeat any claim by Ms Deak-Fabrikant, and, given that at that time Paul Grech was the registered proprietor of two properties, no such application would be successful.

373 Accordingly, there is evidence to support Ms Deak-Fabrikant's contention that Stephen and Jelvie Grech received significant infusions of funds, a substantial part of which were used to pay off their mortgage. I accept Stephen and Jelvie Grech's evidence that prior to the purchase of the Speakmen Street property they had accumulated substantial savings and gifts to put toward the purchase price of the Speakmen Street property, and that owing to their own efforts and the assistance of Jelvie's mother they were able to make substantial additional payments during 2002. However, the source of the substantial deposits to Stephen Grech's accounts in 2005, 2006, and 2007 remains a mystery. I do not discount the possibility that Paul Grech was the source of these funds, or part of them.

374 However, even if Paul Grech provided some or all of the additional funds deposited to Stephen Grech's account over and above the $45,000 admitted by him, that does not of itself give rise to an interest in the Speakmen Street property, or a claim by Ms Deak-Fabrikant to those funds. The authorities suggest it is doubtful that contributions to mortgage payments can give rise to a resulting trust,[27] and in any event, the evidence of the parties is that any contribution made by Paul Grech was made by way of a gift. Given the presumption of advancement, any payment by Paul Grech to Stephen Grech would be presumed to be a gift in the absence of any persuasive evidence that the transaction had a different intention or character. No such evidence exists. And finally, given my findings about the absence of any agreement between Paul Grech and Ms Deak-Fabrikant to the effect claimed by her, any such gift was made by Paul Grech alone.

375 I would add that Ms Deak-Fabrikant's assertions that Paul Grech siphoned off a substantial proportion of their joint resources to fund the payment of the mortgage over the Speakmen Street property also exposes a fundamental inconsistency in the manner in which she puts her case. As noted in the section where I dealt with issues of credit, Ms Deak-Fabrikant contends, in support of her claim to an equitable interest in the Speakmen Street property, that in the years between 2001 and 2007 Paul Grech was earning substantial income from his bathroom renovation business, perhaps over $100,000 per annum, of which a substantial amount, at one point said to be $350,000,[28] was being siphoned away to Stephen and Jelvie Grech to repay their mortgage. However, in her primary affidavit, she claims that between 1998 and 2004 (although this may be a mistake, as construction did not start until 2004) Paul Grech was unable to devote himself to his business because he was engaged in building the house at Sanctuary Lakes, and therefore asked her to contribute more to household expenses and to provide him with funds for the purchase of materials. Both contentions cannot be true. I am not satisfied that either are true.

376 I accept that Paul Grech did provide some financial assistance to Stephen Grech to purchase the Errol Street property, on the occasion of Stephen Grech's thirtieth birthday in 2007, and to Stephen and Jelvie Grech at the time of their engagement in 2000 and their wedding in 2003. I am satisfied, by reason of my findings in relation to the alleged agreement between Paul Grech and Ms DeakFabrikant regarding the sharing of resources, that this assistance was from Paul Grech's own personal funds, that he was free to provide those funds without consulting Ms Deak-Fabrikant, and that he did so by way of a gift. As such, Ms DeakFabrikant has failed to prove that the beneficial owners of the Errol Street, the Speakmen Street, and the Ballarat Road properties are any other person than the registered proprietors of those properties. The fact that Paul Grech signed the contract of sale for the Errol Street property, provided some financial assistance to Stephen Grech for its acquisition, and occasionally collected rent from the tenants, does not, without more, confer a beneficial interest in that property upon Paul Grech. The existence of a document[29] which showed that a year after the purchase of the Errol Street property Stephen Grech had some funds on term deposit, does not of itself disprove his contention that the Errol Street property was purchased primarily from his own funds.

377 Further, any gift by Paul Grech of funds to Stephen and Jelvie Grech at the time of their engagement may have helped Stephen and Jelvie Grech fund the deposit on the Speakmen Street property, but that, of itself, does not confer any interest in the Speakmen Street property upon Paul Grech. After all, Jelvie Grech did not sign the contract of sale for the Speakmen Street property until nearly a year after the engagement, and their wedding was two years after the purchase of the Speakmen Street property. The fact that Paul Grech may have stayed at the Speakmen Street property after the separation, or has used it as a postal address, cannot be probative of him having a beneficial interest in the Speakmen Street property. As such, the assertion that these properties ought to be included in the asset pool for consideration is rejected.

Did Paul Grech ever promise to Ms DeakFabrikant that he held any or all of the properties referred to on trust for her as to 50% of their value?

378 Given my findings that Paul Grech holds no beneficial interest in any of the Errol Street, Speakmen Street, and Ballarat Road properties, this question can be restated as being whether Paul Grech had ever promised that he held either or both of the Altona or Sanctuary Lakes properties on trust for Ms DeakFabrikant.

379 I do not accept that Paul Grech ever said words to the effect that he would hold his properties on trust for Ms DeakFabrikant. I doubt whether Paul Grech would use such language, either to Ms DeakFabrikant, or for that matter, to Stephen Grech. I also do not accept that Paul Grech ever promised Ms DeakFabrikant that she had a beneficial interest in the Altona property. Apart from my general concern about the credibility of Ms DeakFabrikant's evidence, the evidence she did give about conversations where such promises were made was vague and imprecise as to the approximate dates, occasions, and the events which triggered such discussions. According to Ms DeakFabrikant, one of these discussions was in 1993, when she did not live at the Altona property. It is also inconsistent with the references in Dr Kaplan's records about Ms DeakFabrikant's feelings of financial insecurity and her concerns about Paul Grech's failure to commit to her as late as 2001.

380 The evidence and issues concerning any promises made by Paul Grech in respect of the Sanctuary Lakes property are a little different. It was a property acquired by Paul Grech during the course of the relationship. I accept that it was originally purchased as an investment property. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Paul Grech contemplated living in the Sanctuary Lakes property (indeed, his evidence is that by the end of 2007 he intended to do so), that this was a subject of discussions between him and Ms DeakFabrikant, and that given the dynamics of the relationship between him and Ms DeakFabrikant, he attempted to placate her by promising to 'put her on the title' of the Sanctuary Lakes property, without necessarily intending to do so. This is consistent with the evidence of Anna Sapozhnikov regarding what Paul Grech told her during her visit in 2007, although Anna Sapozhnikov's evidence was equally consistent with Ms Deak-Fabrikant making demands that Paul Grech put her on the title of the Sanctuary Lakes property and Paul Grech resisting those demands. Also, a pending move to Sanctuary Lakes is also consistent with Ms DeakFabrikant purchasing Stephen's car and expressing interest in learning to drive.

381 However, Paul Grech denies that he ever promised that he would put Ms DeakFabrikant on the title of the Sanctuary Lakes property. One can understand his reluctance to do so. No doubt Stephen Grech would not be happy with such a proposal, given his antipathy to Ms DeakFabrikant and the contributions he had made to the development of the Sanctuary Lakes property. Faced with this conflict of evidence, I am forced to speculate as to what the true position might have been. However, Ms DeakFabrikant bears the onus of proof on the question of whether Paul Grech promised to her that she would have a half share interest in the Sanctuary Lakes property, that she relied upon those promises and changed her position on the strength of those promises, such that it would be unconscionable of Paul Grech to deny her interest in the Sanctuary Lakes property.

382 Given my concerns about the credibility regarding Ms DeakFabrikant's evidence, I cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Paul Grech made any such promises, although I do not dismiss this as a possibility. However, in any event, I am not satisfied that Ms DeakFabrikant changed her position in any way in reliance upon any such promises, if they were in fact made. She continued to live in the Altona property, which was, according to the references in Dr Kaplan's records, where she was trapped by her own financial circumstances. It might have been a different matter if she actually moved to the Sanctuary Lakes property, but she never did. Continuing to live in a relationship and contributing to household expenses cannot, without more, amount to detrimental reliance, such as to warrant giving effect to a promise to dispose of beneficial interest in a property, in the absence of any evidence on the part of Ms Deak-Fabrikant as to how she would have behaved differently if these promises had not been made.

383 Given my findings regarding the ownership of the Speakmen Street, Errol Street, and Ballarat Road properties, and as conceded by counsel for Paul Grech at trial, the appropriate asset pool for consideration when evaluating whether an adjustment of property interests under the Relationships Act ought to be made is comprised of the Altona property and the Sanctuary Lakes property. The Altona property was brought into the relationship by Paul Grech, and the Sanctuary Lakes property was acquired by Paul Grech during the course of the relationship. For the avoidance of doubt, while this was not the subject of extensive evidence or argument at trial, the other assets of the parties should otherwise lie as they fall, with Ms DeakFabrikant being entitled to retain possession of her furniture, household goods, and personal effects, and with Paul Grech being entitled to recover any furniture, tools, equipment, and other items purchased by him which remain at the Altona property.

Did Ms Deak-Fabrikant make contributions to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of the properties referred to in the statement of claim or any of them?

384 Ms Deak-Fabrikant agrees that she made no contributions to the purchase price of any of the properties that are the subject of the proceeding. However, she asserts, in summary, that she made financial contributions, either directly or indirectly, as follows:

(a) the Altona property: she helped with the clean-up of the property when she, Paul Grech, and Stephen Grech moved into the property together in 1991; assisted in planning renovations in 1993; purchased fixtures for the property (airconditioners, security doors, installed gates); landscaped and maintained the garden over the course of a number of years; provided funds to purchase the materials for an aviary; and has been solely responsible for the repairs and maintenance of the property since the separation in September 2008;

(b) the Sanctuary Lakes property: the property was purchased and developed using their matrimonial funds; she provided further financial assistance to the household during the period of construction, and provided money to assist with the purchase of materials; and

(c) the Errol Street property: the property was purchased using their matrimonial funds; she provided $2,000 to Paul Grech to assist in the settlement of the purchase, and assisted him with cleaning up the property and providing window furnishings.

385 Ms DeakFabrikant makes no claims that she provided any contribution to the purchase or upkeep of the Speakmen Street or Ballarat Road properties, save for her general contention that to the extent that Paul Grech made financial contributions to the acquisition of these properties, those contributions came from their joint matrimonial funds. Also, to the extent that he carried out repairs and renovations on these properties, he was donating time and materials that could be used for generating income for the family.

386 Having regard to my findings regarding the absence of any equitable interest on the part of either Ms DeakFabrikant and Paul Grech in either of the Errol Street, Speakmen Street, and Ballarat Road properties, and Ms DeakFabrikant's concession that she made no direct financial contributions to the Speakmen Street and Ballarat Road properties, it is only necessary to make findings in relation to the Altona property and the Sanctuary Lakes property.

387 I find that Ms DeakFabrikant did make financial contributions to the conservation and improvement of the Altona property in paying for the landscaping and garden maintenance at the Altona property. While Paul Grech rejects the contention that these gardening and landscaping works have improved the value and amenity of the Altona property, that is a matter of taste and opinion on his part. I also accept that Ms DeakFabrikant has made other direct financial contributions, albeit minor, to the conservation and maintenance of the Altona property during the period that she has resided there. While it is difficult on the evidence to precisely quantify this contribution, I consider that an adjustment of property interests in her favour is warranted by reason of her financial contributions to the conservation and improvement of the Altona property.

388 I am not persuaded, having regard to the concerns I have about the credibility of Ms DeakFabrikant's evidence, and the evidence of the other parties, including documentary evidence relied upon by Paul and Stephen Grech, that Ms DeakFabrikant made any direct or indirect financial contribution to the acquisition, conservation, or improvement of the Sanctuary Lakes property.

389 Ms DeakFabrikant conceded that no payments were ever made by her with respect to the purchase and development of the Sanctuary Lakes property, notwithstanding her earlier assertions that she provided Paul Grech with cash for materials, and she also conceded that any additional household expenses borne by her were unrelated to the development of the Sanctuary Lakes property.

Did Ms DeakFabrikant make contributions to the financial resources of Paul Grech or Stephen Grech?

390 I accept that Ms DeakFabrikant made financial contributions to the household, which included herself, Paul Grech, and at times, Stephen Grech, by contributing to household expenses, and the provision of furniture and household goods for their mutual use. I accept that Ms DeakFabrikant brought more furniture and household goods into the Altona property than that conceded by Paul and Stephen Grech. However, I am not satisfied that Ms DeakFabrikant provided any direct financial assistance to Paul Grech or Stephen Grech over and above her contributions to household expenses, and I accept that Ms DeakFabrikant also benefited from being able to live at the Altona property and share her expenses with Paul Grech. I do not accept Ms DeakFabrikant's contention that she supported Stephen Grech in an indirect way by reason of Paul providing Stephen Grech with financial support. I accept that Stephen Grech was largely financially selfsufficient during his university years, there being documentary evidence of his earnings from employment and other sources of income. In any event, given my findings regarding the financial arrangements within the household, if Paul Grech did provide Stephen Grech with financial assistance from time to time, that would not amount to a financial contribution on the part of Ms DeakFabrikant.

391 Having regard to the fact that Ms Deak-Fabrikant also benefited from the sharing of expenses and the provision of rent free accommodation by Paul Grech, I do not consider her financial contributions warrant a further adjustment in her favour.

Did Ms Deak-Fabrikant make contributions to the welfare of Paul Grech and/or his children, including as a homemaker and/or a parent?

392 As indicated earlier, I accept that Paul Grech and Stephen Grech tended to downplay the contributions made by Ms Deak-Fabrikant to the household and family over the course of the relationship. While I accept the general thrust of Paul and Stephen Grech's evidence regarding the quality of their relationships with Ms Deak-Fabrikant over time, and the evidence of other Grech family members regarding her lack of involvement with the extended Grech family, I consider that Ms Deak-Fabrikant's role as homemaker was much greater than Paul and Stephen Grech gave her credit for. Paul Grech was working in his business from 1993, and constructing the house at the Sanctuary Lakes property from 2004. Stephen Grech, upon his own evidence, was away from the Altona property in 1994 and 1995, at the Altona property alone for a number of months in 1996, busy with university, part time work, and sport until 1999, travelling overseas for much of 2000, and rarely visited the Altona property after he left in 2001. Therefore, his evidence regarding the domestic work carried out by Ms Deak-Fabrikant was of limited assistance. Further, photographs and videos of the interior and exterior of the Altona property show a tidy and well cared for house and garden, with the house being well furnished and decorated. While in later years one might expect Paul Grech to have complained about the large number of pets in the household, there is evidence that he cared for and enjoyed the pets. My observations of Paul Grech from the photographs and DVDs suggest that he was a generally gregarious and easy going person who enjoyed the company of family and friends, and that Ms DeakFabrikant's family and friends formed part of his social network.

393 Accordingly, I accept that Ms Deak-Fabrikant made noneconomic contributions to the welfare of the family and provided Paul Grech with companionship and support that warrants recognition under s 45 of the Relationships Act, noting that in Apostolidis v Kalenik,[30] the Court of Appeal cautioned against giving insufficient recognition to a de facto partner's contributions to discharging the bulk of domestic and parental obligations, which enabled the other partner free to focus his talents on the growth of his business. Similarly, in Cressy v Johnson,[31] the judge found that the plaintiff's role as a homemaker and as the primary carer of three children, along with contributions from part time earnings warranted a significant adjustment in her favour.

394 The distinction between the facts in the proceedings referred to above and Ms Deak-Fabrikant's claims in the current proceeding is the role played by the claimants in those proceedings in caring for school aged and younger children. In the current case, I accept the evidence that Ms Deak-Fabrikant played a relatively limited role in Stephen Grech's life while he was at school, given her absences and his absences from the Altona property between 1993 and 1996, and an even more limited role after that. I accept Stephen Grech's evidence that the argument at the kitchen table in 1997 precipitated a complete breakdown in the relationship between him and Ms Deak-Fabrikant. I am also not satisfied that Ms Deak-Fabrikant played a significant role in the lives of Paul's older children, given that they lived with their mother and later their partners.

Has the value of any of the properties referred to in the statement of claim been diminished by the conduct of the parties?

395 The question of 'waste' is relevant to only two of the five properties, being the Sanctuary Lakes property and the Errol Street property. In regards to the Sanctuary Lakes property, I accept that it is likely that the Sanctuary Lakes property has diminished in value by reason of the house and exterior of the property remaining incomplete and unoccupied over the past seven years. However, there is no evidence as to what that diminution of value might be. Further, I accept the evidence of Paul and Stephen Grech to the following effect:

(a) notwithstanding the issue of an occupancy certificate for the Sanctuary Lakes property, there was still work to be done to the Sanctuary Lakes property to make it habitable and to comply with the requirements of the Sanctuary Lakes Resort Management; and

(b) the lodgement of the caveat over the Sanctuary Lakes property by Ms DeakFabrikant hampered their ability to raise funds to complete the necessary works, and that Stephen and Jelvie Grech made an overly optimistic judgement call as to how long this proceeding might take to finalise.

396 Accordingly, to the extent that the value of the Sanctuary Lakes property can be attributed to neglect, any responsibility for that can be sheeted home to all parties. Strictly speaking, it is not necessary for me to deal with the question of whether the value of the Errol Street property has deteriorated. However, for completeness, I accept the evidence of Stephen Grech that the Errol Street property was purchased for its land value, has always been in poor repair, and no substantial works have ever been or are intended to be carried out on it.

Were the transfers of the Altona property and/or the Sanctuary Lakes property intended to defeat any potential claims by Ms DeakFabrikant against Paul Grech?

397 While the circumstances and timing of the transfer of the Altona property do raise some suspicions regarding Paul Grech's motivation for the transfer of the Altona property to Stephen Grech, I am not satisfied to the requisite standard of proof that at the time of making the transfer an anticipated order of this Court was likely to be defeated by the transfer.

398 Section 63 of the Relationships Act is in similar, albeit not identical terms, as s 106B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Section 106B(1) provides as follows:

(1) In proceedings under this Act, the court may set aside or restrain the making of an instrument or disposition by or on behalf of, or by direction or in the interest of, a party, which is made or proposed to be made to defeat an existing or anticipated order in those proceedings or which, irrespective of intention, is likely to defeat any such order.

399 Section 63, unlike s 106B, does not include the phrase 'irrespective of intention'. However, in my view, the absence from s 63 of any requirement that the disposition must be made with the actual or constructive knowledge that the disposition may defeat an existing or anticipated order leads to the same result: the focus is upon the likely effect of the transaction, not the motivation to enter the transaction. In Halabi v Artillaga (Halabi),[32] when considering a predecessor provision to s 106B, Nicholson CJ stated that the Court's jurisdiction to set aside a transfer was enlivened when:

an instrument has been made with the intention of defeating an anticipated order in the proceeding, or secondly, regardless of the intention with which it has been made it is likely to have the effect of defeating such an order.

400 The following principles emerge from the Family Court authorities concerning the operation of s 106B of the Family Law Act:[33]

(a) it is necessary to establish a causal connection between the transaction and the defeat of the order;

(b) an order must be objectively foreseeable, not just a claim;

(c) the transaction must be foreseeably likely to defeat that order; and

(d) 'anticipated' means 'expected' or 'reasonably probable' according to an objective test.

401 The focus in the authorities upon the objective effect of a transfer is a little difficult to reconcile with the statement by Nicholson CJ in Halabi that it is sufficient for there to be an intention to defeat an anticipated order in order to enliven the jurisdiction under s 106B. However, it is not necessary to reconcile that tension in the current case, and in any event, s 63 of the Relationships Act makes no reference to the intention behind any transaction. In the case of the transfer of the Altona property in January 2008, I am not satisfied that the transfer was made with the intention to defeat an anticipated order, or was foreseeably likely to defeat such an order. The opposite is the case with the transfer of the Sanctuary Lakes property: in my view, the transfer was made with both the intention and the likely effect of defeating such an order.

402 To the extent that Paul Grech's motivations in transferring the Altona property are relevant, I accept that as at January 2008 the relationship was in difficulties. However, I also accept that at that time, there were plans underway with respect to the redevelopment of the Altona property, and that evidence was corroborated by the evidence of Ms DeakFabrikant's friend Mr Sverdlin. Given Paul Grech's age and income, it is plausible that Stephen Grech would have had a better opportunity to raise funding for any development, as is evidenced by the offer of finance made in October 2008, and that raising loan finance would be easier if the property was in his name. In any event, I am not satisfied that as at January 2008 the transfer of the Altona property could have been foreseeably likely to defeat an order that was reasonably likely to be made in Ms DeakFabrikant's favour. After all, the Altona property had been brought into the relationship by Paul Grech. Even after the transfer of the Altona property, Paul Grech still held an asset of sufficient value to meet any reasonably foreseeable award in favour of Ms Deak-Fabrikant, being the Sanctuary Lakes property.

403 However, I am satisfied that the Sanctuary Lakes property was transferred in order to defeat any claims by Ms DeakFabrikant over Paul Grech's assets, and that at that time it would be reasonably likely that the transfer would defeat any order made in a proceeding such as this. Of course, the timing of the transfer would have aroused suspicions in any event, being two days after the separation. Further, by that time Paul Grech knew that the Sanctuary Lakes property was his only asset, and he knew, if his evidence regarding the threats said to have been made against him by Ms DeakFabrikant is correct, that she 'knew her rights', and would be likely to make a claim against him if they failed to reconcile after their separation. In any event, any doubt was dispelled by Paul Grech's evidence when questioned by me about the transfer. Further, as at 30 September 2008 it was objectively foreseeable that there would be an order made in favour of Ms Deak-Fabrikant. Paul Grech had been forced to leave the Altona property in acrimonious circumstances. The police were involved. According to Paul Grech, Ms Deak-Fabrikant often threatened to take his properties when they argued. They had been in a long term domestic relationship, and, notwithstanding Paul Grech's own views about his entitlements to his properties and her contributions, there was always likely to be some award in favour of Ms DeakFabrikant. The transfer ought to be set aside.

Did Paul Grech and/or Stephen Grech assault Ms Deak-Fabrikant, and if so, what damages is she entitled to as a result?

404 There were no witnesses to the incident in the garden at the Altona property on 28 September 2008. Ms DeakFabrikant says Paul Grech assaulted her by grabbing her shoulder violently and shaking her. Paul Grech says she lunged at him during an argument, and he grabbed her shoulder after he lost his balance. There is no dispute that there was a fierce argument between them, and that Paul Grech was arrested by the police that evening. Paul Grech, despite subsequently pleading guilty to one of the charges brought against him arising out of this incident, denies assaulting Ms DeakFabrikant, and said that his plea of guilty was made on the advice of his solicitor to 'put the matter behind him'. Of course, by reason of s 91(1) of the Evidence Act 1958 (Vic), evidence of the decision in the Magistrates' Court proceeding in which the guilty plea was made is not admissible to prove that Paul Grech did in fact assault Ms DeakFabrikant. That must be based upon the evidence in this proceeding.

405 Ms DeakFabrikant relies upon her own evidence, and the evidence of Dr Economidis to the effect that Ms DeakFabrikant reported the alleged assault to her two days later. Paul Grech denies the assault, and alleges that, two days later, during a visit to the Altona property accompanied by police, Ms DeakFabrikant tried to assault him. The police officer who witnessed this incident and made a statement to that effect was not called to give evidence at trial, although he had been subpoenaed to do so, and counsel for Paul Grech had on a number of occasions sought to schedule his appearance. I draw no adverse inference from his failure to give evidence. Ms DeakFabrikant had made it clear that she did not wish to have witnesses called by the other parties interposed while she was running her case, and the trial concluded quite quickly, within a day, after I determined to proceed with the trial in Ms DeakFabrikant's absence. I can infer that the failure of the police officer to attend Court was owing to the logistical pressures facing the Grech parties on 30 October 2014.

406 An allegation of assault is a serious matter. Of course, Ms DeakFabrikant is not required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Paul Grech assaulted her. However, s 140(2) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) provides that the Court must find the case of a party proved if it is satisfied that the case has been proved on the balance of probabilities, having regard to the nature of the cause of action, and the gravity of the matters alleged. This provision essentially codifies the common law test in Briginshaw v Briginshaw,[34] where the High Court held:

The truth is that, when the law requires the proof of any act, the tribunal must feel an actual persuasion of its occurrence or existence before it can be found. It cannot be found as a result of a mere mechanical comparison of probabilities independently of any belief in its reality. No doubt an opinion that a state of facts exists may be held according to infinite gradations of certainty: and this has led to attempts to define exactly the certainty required by the law for various purposes. Fortunately, however, at common law no third standard of persuasion was definitely developed. Except upon criminal issues to be proved by the prosecution, it is enough that the affirmative of an allegation is made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal.

407 Other judges of the Court in Briginshaw refer to the necessity for a decisionmaker to feel a 'comfortable satisfaction', 'certainty of intellectual conviction', and to not be 'oppressed with reasonable doubt'.

408 Both parties agree that there was an argument and physical contact of some kind. Ms Deak-Fabrikant says that it was initiated by Paul Grech when he became enraged and grabbed her arm. Paul Grech stated he grabbed her arm when he lost his balance when she pushed him, so any contact on his part was accidental. Both parties have consistently maintained their version of events over a long period of time, during the course of hearings and correspondence regarding charges laid against Paul Grech, and applications for intervention orders against each other, so neither party's version of events is the subject of recent invention. So in the end, it is a question of who I believe.

409 In the current case, it is contended that I should prefer Ms DeakFabrikant's version of events over the account of Paul Grech, in circumstances where serious allegations have been made and I have made adverse findings regarding the credibility of her evidence. I cannot achieve the state of comfortable satisfaction necessary to find in Ms DeakFabrikant's favour on this issue.

410 I accept that such a finding may sit incongruously with Paul Grech's plea of guilty to a summary charge of unlawful assault. However, all that is proven by that fact is that he did plead guilty, and the reason he advanced for doing so, particularly in the context of a more serious charge being withdrawn, is plausible, particularly given that he and Ms Deak-Fabrikant were engaged in a number of legal proceedings.

411 In any event, if I had found that Paul Grech had assaulted Ms Deak-Fabrikant, there is insufficient material before me to make a finding that any injury arising out of the assault had long term physical consequences, in circumstances where the medical records in evidence show that she had other, preexisting conditions which affected her shoulder, arms and hands. She did not require strong analgesic medication to treat the injury, or at least her medical records do not disclose that she did. Ms DeakFabrikant's evidence regarding what she can and cannot do around the house without assistance is contradicted by the evidence of her niece, who describes her home as immaculate. In crossexamination, Ms DeakFabrikant said that she could not use a vacuum cleaner: other evidence shows that the house at the Altona property is serviced by a ducted vacuuming system. I accept that there is evidence that Ms DeakFabrikant has suffered some psychological problems over recent years, and that according to Dr Kaplan's letter of 7 December 2010, she has experienced stresses 'in relation to her recent separation from Paul Grech'. However, the evidence of Dr Kaplan regarding the psychological injuries suffered by Ms Deak-Fabrikant arising out of the relationship was equivocal, and was largely directed at the impact of Ms Deak-Fabrikant's allegations of sexual assault.[35] Further, Dr Kaplan's letter predates the commencement of the trial by three and a half years.

412 As for the alleged assaults by Stephen Grech against Ms Deak-Fabrikant, once again, there were no witnesses, and each party has steadfastly maintained their position since the allegations were first made by Ms Deak-Fabrikant on or about 3 December 2008. In her application for an intervention order made on 3 December 2008, Ms Deak-Fabrikant stated as follows:

The deft is my step-son. I was in a defacto relationship with his father for over 18 years. There are current bail orders against the deft's father. This is listed before the court on 24 November 2008.

The deft used to live at the residence until he married. The AFM currently lives in the family home. The deft's father was ordered to leave as a result of the pending hearing. The deft wants the AFM to leave the property. The deft has been telephoning and attending the residence in order to threaten and intimidate the AFM out of the residence. The deft has been loitering around. On 29 September 2008, the deft rang the AFM and threatened that the AFM was to get out of the house or she would be dead. The deft tried to conceal his voice, however, the AFM believes it was the deft. The AFM takes this threat seriously. On 30 September 2008, the deft told the AFM that he wanted to attend at the residence. The AFM denied his request. Police rang on deft behalf, stating that the deft wanted to attend the residence as it was his property. AFM refused request. The deft, deft's father and police attended that night. The deft tried to enter the premises to which the AFM denied. The deft asked father to take photo's of residence. On 2.10.08, the deft telephoned the AFM and made a threat that the AFM's cat would disappear. On 3 October 2008, the deft rang and threatened the AM to "watch herself", and that her birds will fly away. The AFM takes these threats seriously. The deft attended at the AFM's house on 11 October 2008, with is father and another man. The deft made a gesture of slitting throat to the AFM. The AFM fears that this threat may be carried out. The AFM lives in constant fear of deft.

413 Stephen Grech appeared at the hearing on 3 December 2008 and denied all of the allegations made against him, but the application was granted. On 4 November 2009, Ms Deak-Fabrikant made an application to extend the intervention order, stating:

I am wanting to extend the order because I am in fear because of the respondents continuing behaviour and him putting his finger across my throat as if to say that I am dead. I live in constant fear of the respondent.

414 On 18 November 2009 the intervention order was extended, but the Magistrates' Court refused an application by Ms Deak-Fabrikant for a further extension on or about 13 January 2010 after receiving correspondence from Stephen Grech to the effect that he denied all allegations made against him, and that he had no contact with Ms Deak-Fabrikant since the Magistrates' Court hearing on 3 December 2008. Ms Deak-Fabrikant arranged for a fresh application to be served upon Stephen Grech by the police on 20 January 2010. Stephen Grech did not appear, but sent the Court a detailed letter outlining his position. The application was refused.

415 Once again, I am faced with two versions of events, and no independent witnesses. While it is possible that these events did occur, having regard to my view of Ms Deak-Fabrikant's credibility, I am not satisfied that Ms Deak-Fabrikant has proven to the requisite standard of proof that Stephen Grech assaulted her.

416 Once again, even if I am wrong, there is scant evidence of any lasting impact upon Ms Deak-Fabrikant of any such threats. The highest the evidence gets is in Dr Kaplan's letter of 7 December 2010, where he states in his final paragraph:

Ms Deak-Fabrikant has been engaged in litigation with Paul and his son, Steven, in relation to her property settlement. Steven, on one occasion, threatened to kill her and she is still fearful of him and feels anxious at night. Her anxiety in reaction to Steven has been an additional source of stress.

417 In summary, having regard to the determination of each of the issues in the proceeding, I make the following conclusions:

(a) neither Paul Grech or Ms DeakFabrikant have any beneficial interest in the properties at Errol Street, Speakmen Street, or Ballarat Road. As such, the caveats over those properties ought to be removed immediately;

(b) I am not satisfied that Paul Grech declared that he was the trustee of Ms DeakFabrikant's fifty per cent interest in either the Altona property or the Sanctuary Lakes property (or for that matter, the Errol Street property), or made any legally enforceable promises to her to that effect;

(c) however, Ms DeakFabrikant has a valid claim for an adjustment of property interests under s 45 of the Relationships Act, and the relevant asset pool for consideration includes the Altona property and the Sanctuary Lakes property;

(d) I consider that Ms DeakFabrikant's financial contributions to the conservation and improvement of the Altona property warrant an award of five per cent of the value of the asset pool;

(e) I consider that Ms DeakFabrikant's financial contributions to the financial resources of Paul Grech and Stephen Grech, including her contributions to household expenses and the use of the furniture and household goods brought by her into the Altona property have been offset by the contributions made to her financial welfare by Paul Grech, and do not warrant any further award in her favour;

(f) having regard to the nonfinancial contributions of Ms DeakFabrikant to the welfare of Paul Grech, a further adjustment equivalent to ten per cent of the value of the asset pool is warranted; and

(g) having regard to the relevant factors under s 51 of the Relationships Act, a further adjustment equivalent to five per cent of the asset pool is warranted.

418 Based upon the accepted valuations of the Altona property and the Sanctuary Lakes property, an award of twenty per cent of the asset pool translates to a cash sum of $256,000.

419 In relation to the factors under s 51 of the Relationships Act, the relevant factors in the current case are the length of the relationship, the capacity of each party for employment, the age and health of the parties, the assets and resources of the parties, and the needs and circumstances of each party.

420 It is accepted that the parties were in a long term domestic relationship. In relation to the respective resources and needs of the parties, both Paul Grech and Ms Deak-Fabrikant are retired persons, approaching their seventies, and have some health issues. No doubt their capacity to earn income from employment is extremely limited, although Paul Grech's capacity to do some handyman work might be improved if he had access to his tools, which apparently remain at the Altona property. Both parties have rent free accommodation, for the time being, Ms Deak-Fabrikant at the Altona property, and Paul Grech at a property owned by his brother. At the current time, no party is the registered proprietor of any real property.

421 The evidence suggests that Paul Grech is the beneficiary of considerable family support, no doubt in part by reason of assistance provided by him to family members in the past. Stephen and Jelvie Grech have funded his legal costs in this proceeding, and his brother has provided him with accommodation. There is limited evidence before me regarding the support Ms Deak-Fabrikant has received from her family in the past apart from some cash payments from her adult children in recent years and the willingness of her family members to come to Court to give evidence in this proceeding. There was a statement by Katya Dewan in her evidence that her extended family is appreciative of Ms Deak-Fabrikant for arranging their emigration to Australia. Whether that sentiment would translate to practical material support no doubt remains to be seen. Her adult children live either interstate or overseas. Accordingly, Ms Deak-Fabrikant's financial circumstances and needs warrant an adjustment in her favour.

422 Counsel for Ms Deak-Fabrikant submitted that Ms Deak-Fabrikant needs a home to live in and some cash. That submission highlights some of the difficulties in the manner in which Ms Deak-Fabrikant has put her case. It is abundantly clear that Ms Deak-Fabrikant's primary objective is to have the title of the Altona property transferred to her, and possibly a monetary award as well to provide her with a nest egg. However, her aspirations to that outcome, along with her claims to an interest in each of the five properties, in the context of her having brought no real property into the relationship and bringing no substantial earned income into the relationship, are unrealistic in the extreme. If she is seeking to make good her claim in part on the basis of need, there is a lack of logic in a single woman of advancing years and limited income maintaining a claim to a two storey, four bedroom, two bathroom property with a large high maintenance garden, valued in excess of ten per cent above the median house price for the neighbourhood, and nearly fifteen per cent of the median house price for the Melbourne Metropolitan area.[36] Normally, one would expect to see in a family property dispute of this nature evidence about what award would be required to enable a party in the position of Ms Deak-Fabrikant to live in modest but reasonable accommodation in a neighbourhood close to family, friends and facilities. That evidence is completely absent in the current case, which is most unfortunate, because it gives the Court nothing to sensibly consider or work with.

423 It was agreed that any adjustment in Ms Deak-Fabrikant's favour ought to be calculated on a global basis, rather than an 'asset by asset' basis. In determining an appropriate award, some assistance can be derived from other decisions of this Court under the predecessor legislation to the Relationships Act which have adopted a global approach to distributing the asset pool. As noted in paragraph 393 above, in Kalenik v Apostolidis[37] and Cressy v Johnston,[38] the Court recognised the nonfinancial contributions made by the claimants, particularly to the care of children. In Kalenik v Apostolidis,[39] the Court of Appeal awarded an amount equivalent to twenty seven per cent of a substantial asset pool to a claimant who was the primary homemaker and caregiver over the course of a six year relationship, and in Cressy v Johnston,[40] the Court awarded the claimant a fifty per cent share of a relatively modest asset pool after a nine year relationship. In Morgan v Bell,[41] the claimant, who was the primary homemaker and caregiver in a six year relationship, was awarded sixteen per cent of a large asset pool. In Giller v Procopets,[42] a homemaker and caregiver in a three year relationship received just over ten per cent of the asset pool, while in Kenyon v Akeroyd,[43] a homemaker and caregiver in a five year relationship received fifty per cent of a modest asset pool. In Zegarac v Tomesevic,[44] the homemaker and caregiver in a fourteen year relationship received an award of fifty per cent of the value of the home. However, the claimant had also made financial and nonfinancial contributions to the family home, including payment for materials and tradespeople for renovations, and her earnings were used to pay household expenses. In Bennett v Parker,[45] the claimant in a twelve year relationship pooled her earnings, and made a substantial nonfinancial contributions as a homemaker and in improving two properties, which involved engaging in heavy physical labour. She was awarded forty per cent of a modest asset pool.

424 As can be seen from the above, the larger awards in proportional terms are generally made to claimants where the asset pool is relatively modest, the relationship is lengthy, the claimant has made significant direct and indirect financial contributions to the properties and resources of the household, and the claimant has borne the burden of the homemaker role, particularly with respect to the care of children. In the current case, the relationship was a relatively long relationship, and while the asset pool is not large, it is not small either. Ms Deak-Fabrikant has made contributions as a homemaker and to the improvement of the Altona property, but she has had limited income to share, and has not been engaged to any great extent with the care of children. As such, an award at the lower end of the scale in proportionate terms is appropriate, albeit not a negligible award.

425 I note that, coincidentally, an award of the sum of $256,000 is less than, but only slightly less than half of the value of the Sanctuary Lakes property. I was not satisfied that Paul Grech made legally enforceable promises to Ms Deak-Fabrikant that he would put her name on the title of the Sanctuary Lakes property, although I do consider that is a possibility, and there is some, if not completely reliable corroborative evidence to that effect. However, if I am wrong about my findings that Ms Deak-Fabrikant has not established her claim to half share of the Sanctuary Lakes property, I would have found that, in the light of her half interest in the Sanctuary Lakes property, no further adjustment in her favour under s 45(1) of the Relationships Act would be warranted. Accordingly, the result would be substantially the same.

426 Finally, while I have found that I am not satisfied to the requisite standard of proof that Ms Deak-Fabrikant was assaulted by either or both of Paul Grech and Stephen Grech, if I was found to be wrong, I would have made no more than a nominal award of damages in her favour. I am not satisfied on the state of the evidence that she was caused any long lasting physical injury over and above her preexisting medical conditions, and any psychological injury may well have been overcome by the stress imposed by the rape proceeding and this proceeding.

427 I shall hear further from the parties on the precise form of orders to give effect to these conclusions, and the question of costs.

STEPHEN PHILLIP GRECH and JELVIE GRECH (also known as JELVIE PANGALILA)

[1] Throughout the course of these reasons, I refer to Larissa DeakFabrikant as 'Ms DeakFabrikant' and Paul, Stephen and Jelvie Grech (and the witness Joseph Grech) by their full names or their first names, so as to distinguish between those parties using the surname 'Grech'. This reflects the manner in which the parties were addressed and referred to during the course of the trial.

[2] This 'loss of opportunity' claim was not pleaded in Ms Deak-Fabrikant's further amended counterclaim.

[4] See [2014] VSC 558.

[5] See [2015] VSC 389.

[6] Relying upon the principles referred to by the Court of Appeal in Xiao Hui Ying v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [2012] VSCA 316.

[7] [1999] HCA 66; (1999) 201 CLR 1.

[8] [2008] VSC 175; (2008) 20 VR 195.

[9] Ms Deak-Fabrikant asserted that Paul Grech's receipt of documents in which the address details have not been obscured, unlike the documents which had been produced on subpoena by the OPP, where the address details had been obscured, demonstrated that Paul Grech had obtained Dr Kaplan's records by illegal means. I reject this submission.

[11] Transcript 396, 16-35; Transcript 396, 1-18.

[13] These account books were never produced to the Court.

[15] The reference to September 2007 was corrected at trial. The change is of no consequence.

[16] Both Felix Deak and Yanosh Bronshtein gave evidence that this event took place in 1992.

[17] This statement was made at Ms Deak-Fabrikant's request and provided to the police investigating Ms Deak-Fabrikant's claims in the rape proceeding.

[18] I assume that this reference to '2007' is an error and is intended to refer to '1997'.

[20] The first bank statement had a reference to 'sheet No. 17'.

[22] Exhibit 'LDF-13' to the primary affidavit.

[23] Exhibit 'LDF-22' to the primary affidavit.

[25] In fact, as the photographs in 'LDF-13' and 'LDF-22' are of the same occasion, they could not have been taken in 1995, as Ms Deak-Frabrikant's father, who died in 1994, was present in 'LDF-13'.

[26] see Calverley v Green [1984] HCA 81; (1984) 155 CLR 242, 250.

[27] Calverley v Green [1984] HCA 81; (1984) 155 CLR 242, 263.

[28] In any event, this cannot be correct, with the total of the non-routine cash deposits to Stephen Grech's account between 2001 and 2007 being in the order of $250,000.

[29] Exhibit 'CU', admitted into evidence during the course of submissions on 31 August 2015.

[30] (2011) 35 VR 563.

[31] [2009] VSC 52.

[32] (1993) 17 Fam LR 675, 679.

[33] Marriage of Whitaker (1980) 5 Fam LR 769; Pflugradt and Pflugradt (1981) 7 Fam LR 188; Hajduk and Hajduk (1993) 109 FLR 218; Ivanfy and Ivanfy (1978) 4 Fam LR 542; D and D (1984) 10 Fam LR 73.

[34] [1938] HCA 34; (1958) 60 CLR 336.

[35] Dr Kaplan's letter of 7 December 2010 was originally ruled as inadmissible, but given that Dr Kaplan was called to give evidence, I have considered his report.

[36] In March 2014 the median house price in Altona was $657,500; while the median house price for the Melbourne Metropolitan area was $646,500. Source: Real Estate Institute of Victoria.

[37] (2011) 35 VR 563.

[38] [2009] VSC 52.

[39] (2011) 35 VR 563.

[40] [2009] VSC 52.

[41] [2011] VSC 302.

[42] [2008] VSCA 236; (2008) 24 VR 1.

[43] [2008] VSCA 277.

[44] [2003] VSC 150.

[45] [2000] VSC 401.