The test of partial dependency can be satisfied by contributions which meet a relatively small proportion of a person's needs. In my view it has been shown clearly that Mr Porthouse was at the least partly dependent on Mr Scott at times during the period from 1968 until the time, not established with certainty but ending in 1977 or possibly earlier, when he moved away to Sydney. When this period began Mr Scott was still in his working years as a wharf labourer, and notwithstanding that Mrs Scott also worked as a cleaner, the probabilities overwhelmingly favour a finding that there was partial dependency consisting of Mr Scott's providing accommodation in a house which he owned, and paying expenses relating to the house such as rates and charges; and probability also favours his contributing to food and other general running expenses for the household from which Mr Porthouse benefited. Housing and shelter, for a number of periods which took too long to be classed as visits, in a house owned by Mr Scott who had the legal right to admit or exclude people from the house, is enough of itself to show that at particular times Mr Porthouse was partly dependent upon Mr Scott. The periods of his membership of the household include significant periods before he began work at the age of 18; during this time he could have had no significant resources. For the period before Mr Porthouse began work a finding of partial dependency can in my view be made with fair certainty; and after that, having regard to his relatively small contributions to board, I find that there was partial dependency during the periods (whatever they were) when he returned to live in the Rawlinson Avenue house.
19 Mr Scott and Mrs Scott constituted a household at 19 Rawlinson Avenue for the whole period from about 1960 when Mr Scott acquired that house and they went to live there until Mrs Scott died in 1985; with the exception of the period of separation in 1973 when Mr Scott continued to maintain a household there. The household continued even if he were the only member of it. Precise findings on how long Mr Porthouse was resident in the house and for what periods cannot be made, and this is not surprising in view of the interval of time and his then circumstances. The household at 19 Rawlinson Avenue, and the membership of it of his mother and her husband, explain his presence in New South Wales; they explain his leaving Hobart and his father who had custody of him when an infant, and they explain his return to Wollongong after his father's death in 1971. His absences for months at a time can be seen in retrospect as attempts which did not succeed to form a household of his own, at times with his woman friend; these became intervals in his residence at 19 Rawlinson Avenue, to which he was always able to return when he wanted to: to a roof, a bed, a meal table and the presence of his surviving parent. He put his relationship with his stepfather and his mother, and his membership of the household to severe tests, including introducing his woman friend, without permission, to the house and to the marital bed when his elders were absent; and attempting suicide to sufficient effect to require hospitalisation; yet he returned to live in the house after these events.
20 Before Mr Porthouse came to Wollongong in 1968 he had spent school holidays, two weeks in August and about six weeks at Christmas, in each of five years staying with his mother and stepfather in the house. The school holiday periods, notwithstanding that some were as long as six weeks, were visits and he did not become a member of the household during those periods. They come under consideration on the question whether Mr Porthouse was at any particular time partly dependent on Mr Scott. The fact that he had so often and for such extended periods visited the household on holidays assists the conclusion that when his schooldays ended and he came from Tasmania to live at the house with no definite plans to leave he was soon assimilated into the household. From his return from Tasmania after 1971 he was even more clearly entrenched in the household; his father had died and he had nowhere else to go. His association with the household was much stronger than the regular visits and weekend stays referred to in Munro v Lake (McLelland J 8 February 1991), and in my opinion there was the degree of continuity and permanency of mutual living arrangements which the concept of membership of a household connotes. It is probable that the sum of the periods of time he spent there is the equivalent of two years or more.
21 I find that Mr Porthouse was a member of the household at 19 Rawlinson Avenue of which Mr Scott was the head for significant periods. Membership of the household is testified eloquently by his being received back there, time and time again, during his turbulent years when he moved out on several occasions and lived in flats, encountered vicissitudes, and returned to the house where his mother and stepfather lived. It is said to be a test of where one's home is that the people there must let you in when you go back. The facts that Mr Porthouse made several attempts to establish himself in living independently before he finally left forever, and that he was received back after each attempt, testify to his having been, and when received back still being a member of the household.
22 In my finding Mr Porthouse is an eligible person as defined.
23 According to his evidence Mr Porthouse had a continuing association with Mr Scott after he moved away from Wollongong. It is Mr Porthouse's evidence that he kept in touch with Mr Scott and Mr Scott kept in touch with him by telephone and mail. He has put in evidence several letters and cards from distant days, probably from about the period 1980 to 1986 long after Mr Porthouse ceased to live in Wollongong, with contents of no great seriousness but indicating a continuing pleasant relationship and shared interests. Mr Porthouse does not produce any letters or cards from Mr Scott which can be dated later than 1986. The letters and cards that he does produce contain ordinary communication among family members, none of much length and not about important matters. The letters deal with small matters which would not be of interest to anyone who was not a family member - holiday journeys, the weather, and the well-being of the domestic dog. Mr Porthouse gave evidence that when business brought him to Sydney from Melbourne he would spend time with Mr Scott when able to do so, for example on visits at night or weekends. When his mother was alive he would spend a few days with Mr and Mrs Scott before starting his holidays or at the end of his holidays. He telephoned every couple of weeks or there would be an exchange of letters. He maintained telephone contact although it was very hard to hold a conversation with Mr Scott by telephone as he had very few interests. Mr Porthouse came from Melbourne to Sydney specifically to see Mr Scott in Liverpool Hospital the day after he had bypass surgery. Their last meeting face-to-face was in 1998.
24 Mr Porthouse gave evidence about his relationship with Mr Scott, which he says was very good; that Mr Scott helped him and gave him advice, they used the names "Eric" and "Tony" and "on the odd occasion called me 'son'". Mr Scott assisted in teaching Mr Porthouse spelling and counting, assisted him with a failing transaction about purchasing a car and with a crisis when a car was damaged; and gave him advice, as a parent would. He assisted Mr Porthouse in work as a scout leader and took him out on social occasions, and on occasions (which were probably rare) he referred to Mr Porthouse as his son when speaking to others. A framed photograph portrait of Mr Porthouse which Mrs Scott had had taken by a photographer in Wollongong hung in a prominent position in the lounge room of the house, and was still there when last seen by Mr Porthouse in 1998. Photographs exist and are in evidence of Mr Scott, Mr Porthouse and others together in pleasant social and recreational situations. In 1988 they travelled separately to Perth where they spent a holiday with a sister of Mr Porthouse who then lived there. On the return Mr Scott visited Mr Porthouse in Geelong.
25 Mr Porthouse has long had a personal association with Mr Alan Brewer; he says they were once in a relationship; since 1985 he has lived as a tenant in a house property owned by Mr Brewer, having a dwelling or unit in a separate building. His evidence shows that he pays rent for this. Mr Scott knew of this relationship, met Mr Brewer, did not express offence or disapproval, and expressed kindly interest in Mr Brewer's welfare in letters which are in evidence. Mr Porthouse's association with Mr Brewer was not a source of any conflict between Mr Porthouse and Mr Scott.
26 Maintaining communication and a pleasant family relationship and showing an interest in Mr Scott and keeping in touch with him was a contribution of a kind to Mr Scott's welfare and well-being; this must have contributed to his sense of having relationships with people and a place in the world and a family without the complexity involving strains, trouble, hostilities or responsibilities which familial ties often have. It is only in this sense that Mr Porthouse made a real contribution to Mr Scott's life or well-being after he left Wollongong. After 1998 this participation in Mr Scott's life faded to very little, and for the last two years also of his life when he was suffering from dementia and was in a nursing home, it had really faded to nothing.
27 There is little evidence of contact of Mr Porthouse with Mr Scott during the last six years of Mr Scott's life. Mr Porthouse says, in relation to this period that he and his sister Helen were arranging a visit when Mr Scott wrote and told him not to come as he was having someone come to stay with him at that time. Mr Porthouse intended to visit Mr Scott in 2002 but could not get the time off work; he says that his sister Helen visited Mr Scott and later told him that Mr Scott's dementia was bad. At some stage, which must have been late in Mr Scott's life, Mr Porthouse's evidence is that he was informed by his sister Helen that Mr Scott was in a nursing home; Mr Porthouse could not contact Mr Scott by telephone, but contacted the nursing home by telephone and was advised "your father has regressed back to his adolescence and will not recognize you". He did not pay any visits to the nursing home.
28 Overall I find that there was good relationship between Mr Scott and Mr Porthouse in earlier years, an appropriate relationship between stepfather and son, although not particularly close. Aspects of the relationship included providing a home to which Mr Porterhouse was allowed to return to during an unsettled youth, going out with him to clubs and social events, and giving him some basic instruction and assistance, sharing recreations and scouting activities, and accepting him as a household member to be provided with housing and other advantages associated with household membership. Mr Scott helped him out when he was in poor situations through business inexperience. This period of relative closeness lasted about 10 years from 1968 to 1977 or thereabouts. It was put to something of a test when Mr Porthouse was asked to give and gave evidence in support of Mr Scott in the maintenance claim brought by Mr Porthouse's mother. This was a significant contribution by Mr Porthouse to Mr Scott's interests and position, and cannot have been easy. Indeed it is the closest thing to a positive contribution to Mr Scott's welfare and interests in the whole case. Mr Porterhouse's departure in 1977 was followed by a long period when the relationship was far less intense, and friendly visits, telephone and written communication, and a cordial and friendly relationship were maintained: usually at a distance. Factors which led to the relationship being less intense included the narrow range of Mr Scott's interests and the distance at which Mr Porthouse lived. The relationship was cordial, appropriate for a stepfather and stepson (and not, I would think, for a father and son in all respects) but involved little contribution by Mr Porthouse towards Mr Scott's well-being. From about 1998 onwards there was very little manifestation of the relationship at all. Mr Porthouse is not to be blamed for this having regard to his limited resources and the distance at which he lived, but this is a fact of the relationship.
29 A significant event was the holiday visit by Mr Scott and Mr Porthouse to Western Australia in February and March 1988; they visited Mr Porthouse's sister Helen Williams and her husband who then lived in Western Australia. Mr Scott had few travels and few holidays away from his own home. Relationships were pleasant on the holiday and in Mrs Helen Williams' observation they got on well together, very much like a father and son. Mr Scott made observations to Mrs Helen Williams which commended Mr Porthouse and spoke of him affectionately, and he gave an assurance of assistance - " What your mother has left you is nothing but I will take care of your brother Tony and you".
30 Mr Austin Latimore was a retired waterfront workmate of Mr Scott. He gave evidence which confirmed Mr Porthouse's presence in Mr Scott's household and Mr Scott's treating him as a son. Mr and Mrs Otis who lived at 21 Rawlinson Avenue from 1972 on also gave evidence confirming Mr Porthouse's presence and Mr Scott's treatment of him as his own son. There was also some confirmation, of relatively slight weight, from Mrs Evelyn Gallagher, a relative of Mr Porthouse, who visited Mrs Scott in Wollongong between the years 1970 and 1985. Similarly there is confirmation, not of great weight, in the affidavit of Desley Spargo, a niece of Mr Scott, who with her husband visited Mr Scott every year from Melbourne from about 1985 to 2000. Her evidence shows that Mr Scott spoke positively and with commendation of Mr Porthouse.
31 I turn to consider Mr Porthouse's needs. Mr Porthouse left school at age 16 and did not receive any trade training or tertiary education. Nonetheless he has achieved positions with management responsibility. He did not receive any significant advancement in life at any stage: he received $2000 from his father's estate and $685 from his mother's estate. Mr Porthouse's income and earning capacity are quite sufficient to provide to his maintenance. His affidavit evidence did not disclose his earning capacity and actual income frankly or truthfully; cross-examination established that he usually receives significant weekly payments from his employment as a bookshop manager for working extra shifts, in addition to his salary which is based on part-time employment, and that he sometimes receives other income from gardening for friends; his capacity to earn income from gardening is not large; these should have been disclosed. This had an adverse influence on my assessment of Mr Porthouse's credibility generally, in a case where credibility was important. Notwithstanding this difficulty, I do not think I should reject his evidence about the times and circumstances in which he lived in the household at 19 Rawlinson Avenue. A person who was not giving evidence of those events in a sincere way would not have acknowledged many difficulties in dealing with matters of detail, as Mr Porthouse did. There is a general air of probability about his account in which, at a young age and without any other establishment to live in, after divorce and unfortunate family circumstances, he was received, and repeatedly and readily received back, into the household where his mother lived. If he had been minded to overstate the facts and prove a clear case, he would have offered evidence of a much clearer case. He gave evidence of events largely in broad outline, and I am satisfied as a matter of probability that the broad outline he depicts is correct.
32 His evidence shows that as of 25 June 2007 he had a bank account containing $2500, and personal items and furniture which he valued at $20,000. He had liabilities on a loan from the bank of Melbourne and on credit cards totalling $15,100. He has never married, does not own any housing, and has lived in the same rented property at Belmont near Geelong since 1985. He does not own a motor car. He puts forward the following needs: