VARELIS -v- RISPOLI [No 2] [2025] WASC 554 (19 November 2025)

1. Section 15 of the Administration Act 1903 (WA) provides that where the deceased had a de facto partner for a period of at least two years immediately before death, the de facto partner has the entitlement of a surviving spouse in accordance with s 14 of the Act.
2. Section 25 of the Administration Act provides that the court may grant administration of the estate of a person who died intestate to one or more persons aged at least 18 years entitled in distribution to the estate. In general, however, the grant of administration follows the person with the largest interest in the estate.[1]
3. The question whether Victoria and Robert were in a de facto relationship immediately prior to Robert's death is to be determined by reference to the definition of 'de facto relationship' in s 13A of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA).
4. That section provides that a reference in a written law to a de facto relationship is to be construed as a reference to a relationship (other than a legal marriage) between two persons who live together in a 'marriage like' relationship.
5. Whether the parties to a relationship are in a 'marriage like' relationship requires an objective assessment of all the facts and circumstances of the case.[2] Section 13A(2) of the Interpretation Act 1984 enumerates a number of factors as indicators of whether a de facto relationship existed between two persons, although the section provides that they are not essential. Those factors include the length of the relationship between them; whether the two persons resided together; the nature and extent of any common residence; whether there was or had been a sexual relationship between them; the degree of financial interdependence and any arrangements for financial support between them; their ownership, use and acquisition of property; the degree of mutual commitment by them to a shared life; whether they care for or support children; and the reputation, and public aspects, of their relationship.
6. The legal concept of a marriage like relationship involves a consensual union, intended by the parties to endure. That intention need not be and will not usually be formally declared, but may be manifested in the words and conduct of the parties in the relationship. The common intention of the parties is therefore an important consideration determining whether a relationship is 'marriage like'.[3]
7. The required intention may be expressed, or implied.[4]

1. A reasonably large number of documents were tendered in the course of the trial. In general terms, those documents comprised documents evidencing that Victoria often gave her residential address as 11 Dwyer Street, Karrinyup; documents containing acknowledgements by Robert that Victoria was his de facto or partner; birthday and other cards given between Robert and Victoria; documents evidencing that others regarded them as a couple, including condolence messages published upon Robert's death; and documents addressed to Victoria at addresses other than 11 Dwyer Street during the years in question.
2. Robert signed an application form to replace his passport,[5] said to expire or to be due to expire on 19 September 1998, identifying 'Vicky Rispoli' as the person to be contacted in case of emergency and giving her address as 11 Dwyer Street.
3. Robert's 1997, 1998 and 1999 tax returns[6] made no reference to Victoria.
4. A HBF clearance certificate dated 27 January 2021 records Robert as the 'Owner' having joined HBF in June 1966, and Victoria having joined as 'Partner' on 19 January 2004, with their cover having ended on 3 August 2021.[7]
5. On 8 February 2008 the Australian Electoral Commission wrote to Victoria at Dwyer Street[8] to inform her that her vote in the Stirling federal electoral division could not be counted because she was not registered to vote in that division.
6. Victoria's 2013,[9] 2016[10] and 2018[11] tax returns record Robert as her spouse, and evidence that Victoria first earned rental income from a property she owns in Hector Street, Tuart Hill on 1 July 2005. Each return evidences that Victoria derived rental income from that property during the financial year to which it relates. The copy of Victoria's 2011 tax return in evidence is incomplete but, similarly, records that the Hector Street property was rented during that financial year.
7. Property management reports provided by real estate agents Limnios Property Group and Realmark Pty Ltd to Victoria[12] evidence that a property owned by Victoria in Hector Street, Tuart Hill was rented to third parties over the period 10 April 2008 to January 2019, from which I infer that Victoria did not live at that address over that period.
8. The earliest correspondence in evidence apparently addressed to Victoria at 11 Dwyer Street is a letter from AHG Roadside Assist to 'Roberto & Vicki Rispoli' dated 23 April 2007,[13] while the earliest correspondence unequivocally addressed to Victoria at the Dwyer Street address is a letter from the Australian Taxation Office dated 28 May 2007.[14]
9. An extract from a letter dated 3 June 2008 from Sussan Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd addressed to Victoria at 11 Dwyer Street confirmed her appointment as a full‑time sales advisor at the company's Hay Street store.[15] At that time Victoria was required to work a 76 hour fortnightly roster, a matter to which I return to below.
10. A National Australia Bank customer particulars report in relation to Robert, signed by him and dated 30 November 2009,[16] recorded his marital status as 'De facto', and identified his mother as his nearest relative not living with him. A second report, again signed by Robert and dated 31 March 2015, was to the same effect.[17]
11. Similarly, an unsigned copy of a National Australia Bank home loan application in Robert's name dated 28 November 2016[18] recorded Robert's marital status as 'de facto'.
12. The documentary evidence included an email from Alison which appears to have been intended to be an introduction to a potential business contact dated 17 June 2011[19] which stated, 'Vicky Varelis is my father's partner...,' to which I refer further below.
13. Robert's tax returns for each of the financial years 2015[20] to 2017[21] identified Victoria as his 'Spouse - married or de facto'. The copy of Robert's 2017 return tendered was signed by him and dated 31 July 2018 - less than 5 months before his death.
14. A St John of God patient admission information form dated 2 May 2016[22] and signed by Robert recorded his mother as his next of kin and Victoria as his partner. Although Robert gave the information regarding Victoria in relation to a question asking for a contact who was in Australia but not living with the patient, Robert gave the address of Victoria as 11 Dwyer St, Karrinyup.
15. A health insurance transfer certificate dated 30 November 2016 issued by Medibank Private Limited to Robert[23] evidences that he and Victoria joined that health insurance fund on 3 August 2011 and remained members until 20 November 2016, with Victoria being identified as Robert's 'spouse'.
16. A private health insurance statement issued by BUPA to Robert dated 1 July 2017 records details of Robert's private health insurance with that company for the financial year ending 30 June 2017, and that Victoria was another adult beneficiary of the policy.[24] A similar statement issued to Victoria dated 13 July 2019 records Victoria as the insured, with Robert as an adult beneficiary under the policy.[25]
17. St John of God Hospital patient progress notes relating to Robert[26] record his 'wife' being present on 8 August 2017 and that consent to a procedure was obtained from 'patient & partner'. An entry later that day referred to Robert being agitated and that his 'wife [was] to stay with patient', and a subsequent entry recorded that he seemed to calm slightly after 'phone calls with his partner'. An entry the following day refers to Robert's 'partner' having been present.
18. A series of Valentine's Day,[27] birthday and Christmas cards exchanged between Robert and Victoria were tendered, together with Easter cards Robert gave Victoria.[28] All of those cards were in the loving terms which might be expected of a couple living together for some years, and are entirely consistent with them living in a de facto relationship.
19. There were also Christmas cards addressed to Robert and Victoria as well as birthday notes to Victoria from Robert's aunt Connie; two Christmas cards addressed to Robert and Victoria from Robert's parents; a Christmas card from Robert's sister Maria referring to Victoria as her sister-in-law, which I infer from the text was sent after Robert's death; a condolence card addressed to Robert and Victoria upon the death of Robert's brother Carl, who died in 2004; a 2007 wedding invitation from Antonietta Rispoli and her then fiancé; a 2008 Christmas card from Palermo Chartered Accountants addressed to them both; a Christmas card from (I infer) Victoria's son Emmanuel to Robert, thanking him for his support and kindness, even when he (Emmanuel) was in hospital; a card saying 'you'll be missed' addressed to 'Vicki and family', from John White, Rose-Marie's former husband and the man alleged to be the executor of Robert's 2008 will; condolence cards addressed to Victoria upon Robert's death; and Christmas and thank you cards addressed to Robert and Victoria from people I infer from the terms of the cards to have been friends of them both, including Christmas cards sent in 2015, 2016 and 2018.
20. A number of condolence messages published in the 'West Australian' newspaper following Robert's death were tendered. They included a message attributed to Robert's mother, expressing 'sincere sympathy to his family and his partner Victoria'; a message from his Aunt Connie and family expressing 'heartfelt sympathy to Rosa [Robert's mother], Victoria and all his loved ones'; a message from Jon, David and Rodney Cain expressing their 'sympathy to Vicki and families, sadly missed, a good friend'; a message from Merv Dorsa expressing 'Deepest sympathy to Vicki, Zia Rosa, Ric and families', a message from Victoria's brother, Peter Varelis, expressing 'deepest sympathy on the sudden death of Robert to Vicki and the Rispoli family', a message from David and Christine Rankine saying 'Deepest sympathy to Mrs Rispoli, Vicki, and Robert's girls'; and a message from Philip Turner which stated:

Fondest memories of over 40 years in the car trade, restaurants and night clubs with brother Carlo. Sincerest sympathy to Mrs Rispoli, Vicki, the three girls and family'.

1. To similar effect was a message from Patrizia Bartolomei, which said:

Dear Biagio, my dad, your uncle Ugo, always spoke so highly of you and Vicky. You always were a gentleman. Thank you for trying to be there for me ....life gives hard knocks but we try to carry on. My thoughts are with Vicky, Maria, Biagio and all the family.'

1. Excluding the condolence message published by Victoria, eight of the 13 condolence messages tendered expressed sympathy for Victoria. The evidence did not disclose if one or more of the sisters published a condolence message.
2. The Western Australian Electoral Commission confirmed in December 2020 that Victoria was enrolled at the Dwyer Street address from 11 August 2014 to 23 December 2020.[29]
3. The documentary evidence shows that Victoria gave the 11 Dwyer Street address as her residential address to the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Electoral Commission, National Australia Bank, her doctor, her accountant, Myer Pty Ltd, real estate agents in relation to the rental of the Hector Street property, and the Department of Transport in some,[30] but not all, cases.
4. As already stated, there are also a number of documents which show Victoria's address as other than 11 Dwyer Street, most often her mother's address, being 110 Matlock Street, Mount Hawthorn. That address was shown on her driver's licence throughout the period considered in the trial.
5. The remaining documents include rates notices in relation to the Hector Street property and another she now owns together with her son, bank statements, and mobile telephone bills.
6. Victoria's mobile telephone bills show she rang the landline at Dwyer Street frequently during the day.
7. There are stark contrasts between the contemporaneous documents and the evidence of a number of witnesses called in support of Alison's case. In particular, the evidence of a number of witnesses to the effect that Robert denied being in a relationship with Victoria or any woman or denigrated Victoria when speaking of her is entirely inconsistent with what he wrote in the cards he gave her and his nomination of her as his partner or de facto in various documents.
8. I make specific reference below to a number of documents in my assessment of the evidence of particular witnesses, including Alison, Rose‑Marie and Stephanie. As a general proposition, however, the documentary evidence strongly supports findings that Robert and Victoria lived together for many years at 11 Dwyer Street, that they did so in a marriage like relationship, and that they were regarded by their friends and members of Robert's extended family as a couple.

1. In accordance with orders made by Howard J prior to trial, the witnesses' evidence‑in‑chief was given by affidavit.
2. Although the sisters were legally represented at the time each affidavit in support of their defence was filed, in a number of instances the assessment of a witness' evidence has been complicated by the failure of the witnesses called in Alison's case to address particular events in their affidavit.
3. That has been particularly so when assessing the significance to be attributed to a failure to cross-examine on a particular point. Although each of the witnesses' affidavits stated on their face that they had been prepared by solicitors, the failure by a number of witnesses to address particular points of significance and the claim by one witness to the effect that she had personally prepared her own affidavit without reference to solicitors and without having seen an example of an affidavit before doing so, has caused me to give closer consideration to the failure by any particular witness to address what might be thought to have been an obviously important point, and how that may have caused counsel not to have raised that particular point in cross‑examination.
4. In assessing the credibility of the various witnesses, I have had regard to the contemporaneous documents, the objective facts, the witnesses' motivations and the overall probabilities, together with a party's failure to call further witnesses where, on the evidence of one or more witnesses, the court would ordinarily expect that would be done.
5. I have primarily given priority to the contemporaneous documents and comparing the evidence with the known facts.[31]
6. In particular, I have given close consideration to emails passing between Carmel Markham, the funeral arranger who met with Victoria and the three sisters on 2 January 2019 regarding Robert's funeral, and Alison and Stephanie in January 2019, statutory declarations made by Alison, Rose-Marie and Stephanie in August 2022 and their evidence at trial in assessing how Stephanie came to sign a document on 2 January 2019 acknowledging that Robert was in a de facto relationship at the time of his death, and allegations that Stephanie instructed Mrs Markham that she was not to refer to Victoria as Robert's de facto in the draft particulars of death registration intended to be provided to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
7. I have also kept in mind that a witness's evidence does not have to be taken to be true if it is not the subject of cross‑examination,[32] notwithstanding that the court is prima facie entitled to do so,[33] particularly if there is a credible body of evidence in direct contradiction to the evidence which is not the subject of cross‑examination.[34]

1. A number of witnesses gave evidence about statements Robert was said to have made to them, both as to the status of his relationships with Victoria and other women, and as to whether he had made a will. No objection was taken on either side to any of that evidence.
2. Evidence as to Robert's testamentary intentions was admissible, as a recognised exception to the rule against hearsay.[35] Subject to the potential operation of s 32(3) of the Wills Act 1970 (WA), evidence of things said by Robert about having made a will are not, however, admissible as evidence that Robert duly executed a particular or any will.[36]
3. Evidence was also given by a number of witnesses about other things stated to have been said to them by Robert, which a party clearly intended be accepted as evidence of the truth of the particular statement. Alison, in particular, asserted that she possessed personal knowledge of a number of matters based on what she had been told by Robert.
4. That evidence constituted inadmissible hearsay, there being no general exception to the hearsay rule where the maker of the statement is deceased. Principally, this evidence comprised statements Robert is said to have made to one or more of the sisters and third parties regarding his relationship with Victoria, or his relationship status more generally.
5. As recently noted by the Court of Appeal,[37] in a civil case the better view is that, where inadmissible evidence has been adduced without objection, the court should reach its decision on the basis of the legally admissible evidence, and not give the inadmissible evidence probative value it would not otherwise have.[38]
6. I have also born in mind the principles applicable where reliance is placed on communications with a deceased person, conveniently summarised by Hallen J in Blacket v Barnett.[39] Although there is no rule that such evidence must be corroborated, the court will carefully consider whether it is satisfied by that evidence where there is no other contemporaneous evidence of the conversation.
7. In this case, there are a number of contemporaneous documents which evidence that, even if it were to be accepted that Robert made a particular statement denying or minimising the importance of his relationship with Victoria to a particular witness, he acted differently with Victoria and a number of other people, and conducted his affairs on the basis that Victoria was in a de facto relationship with him.
8. Given the lack of objection, I have assessed evidence as to what Robert is claimed to have told any particular witness against the contemporaneous documents and the other admissible evidence, without necessarily rejecting it as evidence of the truth of the statement outright.
9. On that basis, I assess the evidence of the witnesses as follows.

1. Victoria deposed[40] that she married in 1977, separated in about early 1993 and divorced in 1995. There were two children of her marriage. Her husband obtained custody of the children.[41]
2. She commenced working for Sussan Corporation in its Hay Street Mall store in about 1986. She met Robert in about 1991,[42] when he came and spoke to her at the bus stop on her way to work.
3. Her son was 10 years old and Lia 5 years old when she met Robert.[43]
4. She and Robert became friends. He told her that he was separated from his wife and had three daughters. Robert told her that he had another daughter with a woman with whom he had an affair.
5. Victoria and Robert commenced an intimate relationship in about 1991. After Victoria separated from her husband in 1993, she moved into her mother's house at 110 Matlock Street, and she and Robert started dating.
6. After Victoria and Robert had been dating for some time, Robert asked her to move in with him at 11 Dwyer Street, Karrinyup. She agreed. Her evidence is that she moved there in about 1998 and thereafter lived with Robert as man and wife until his death.
7. Victoria's evidence is that from the time she moved to Dwyer Street she always slept at that address unless she had to go away for work. She travelled interstate for business with Sussan twice a year.[44]
8. Victoria did not need a key to the front door of Dwyer Street because she always entered the house through the garage door, which was controlled by a remote opener.
9. She asked Robert about some 'cutting-out' in the carpet in the built-in wardrobe in the main bedroom upstairs, following which he showed her a safe fitted there. He did not give her a key to the safe, and he did not tell her what was in it.
10. Victoria said that during the early stages of their relationship they would go out on a very regular basis to restaurants, hotels for overnight stays, bars, clubs and family functions. Robert would introduce her as his wife or 'missus'. They maintained their sexual relationship during this time.
11. They would attend any Elvis tribute show in Perth together, generally with Steve Bumbak and his wife.
12. Her evidence is that she was offered fulltime work at Sussan after she had moved in with Robert,[45] having worked part-time before that. That is consistent with the employment contract offered Victoria in 2008, when she was working in the Hay Street Mall.
13. Victoria worked in Sussan's Subiaco store for approximately seven years. She finished work in 2019,[46] having worked 45 years for Sussan.[47]
14. Victoria said that in the early days of their relationship Robert's youngest daughter, Stephanie, would spend a lot of time at Dwyer Street, especially on weekends and during school holidays. Stephanie turned 11 years old in 1998.
15. Victoria's evidence is that Robert's daughters, other than Stephanie, did not come to Dwyer Street while she was there, other than on or around Christmas Day. Her evidence was that in the early days of their relationship Robert did not enjoy a good relationship with his daughters, other than Stephanie.
16. Victoria's two children would also spend time at Dwyer Street on weekends and during the school holidays. Victoria's evidence was that her daughter Lia and Stephanie became very close, and were very much like sisters.
17. Victoria's children did not give evidence in support of her case. Her unchallenged evidence was that her son is bipolar, and the proceedings would have been very stressful for him.[48] Victoria's evidence was otherwise to the effect that she considered that she did not really need her daughter Lia to give evidence, as she had sufficient evidence in support of her case.[49]
18. Victoria said that Stephanie slept in the third bedroom when she stayed at the house, Victoria and Robert sleeping in the main bedroom. Lia would sleep in the same bedroom as Stephanie when they were both at the house.
19. Her evidence is that she and Robert used to take her children on outings together, and that Stephanie would come with them when she was staying at Dwyer Street.
20. She said that, whilst Robert was generally romantic and caring, he could also be violent physically, verbally and emotionally. Her evidence was that when Robert was drinking, he would start on her.[50] Victoria said that on many occasions Robert became violent and assaulted her. She would tell people that she had had a fall or try and hide the bruises with makeup.
21. Victoria's evidence was that Robert was extremely possessive and jealous, but always apologised to Victoria after his violence and abuse. Her evidence was that Robert would tell her that it was because he loved her so much that he got jealous if anyone looked at her.
22. She said that it was a regular occurrence for Robert to threaten her with knives, guns and verbally.
23. Victoria's evidence is that the violence ceased in the middle of their relationship, although she could not recall the date.[51] He had stopped hitting her well before his death.
24. Victoria was cross-examined about the extent to which Robert was physically violent toward her, and who she had told about his conduct.[52] Her evidence was that Robert would tell her that he was violent towards her because he loved her so much, and that she did not think of leaving him because she loved him.
25. Victoria's credibility was not affected by that cross‑examination, nor by her evidence about the issue more generally. The fact that Victoria suffered domestic violence in the course of her relationship with Robert does not give rise to any particular conclusion about whether they were in a de facto relationship at any point in time.
26. Had Victoria's evidence regarding this aspect of her relationship with Robert given rise to any substantial concern on my part as to her credibility, I consider that it would be open to me to take judicial notice of the fact that it is not uncommon for people subject to domestic violence to stay with their abusive partner. Sections 39C, s 39D and s 39F of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) permit a court in criminal proceedings to give a direction in an appropriate case, without the need for evidence to be adduced, that (amongst other things):

(a) people may react differently to family violence and there is no typical, proper or normal response to family violence;[53]

(b) it is not uncommon for a person who has been subjected to family violence to stay with an abusive partner after the onset of family violence;[54] and

(c) it is not uncommon for a person who has been subjected to family violence not to report family violence to police or seek assistance to stop family violence.[55]

1. While those provisions are limited in their application to criminal proceedings, in my judgment they constitute a recognition by the Western Australian legislature that each of the matters identified in s 39F(1)(b) of the Evidence Act is generally known, such that every ordinary person should be taken to be aware of them. On that basis, a court could be entitled to take judicial notice of each of those matters.[56]
2. It is, however, unnecessary in this case to have regard to them, as I accept Victoria's evidence as to why she did not leave Robert notwithstanding his conduct towards her, and her evidence that his violence abated over the years.
3. In cross-examination Victoria explained that at Robert's family functions she was acknowledged as Robert's partner. Victoria's evidence was that Robert gave her his father's ring to wear.
4. She said that, once she moved in with Robert, when they both had their children, namely Victoria's two children and Stephanie, they would regularly go to special events such as the Royal Show, movies, the city, trips in Robert's Cadillac, birthdays, Christmases and everything in between.
5. Shortly after Victoria moved to Karrinyup, she was introduced to Robert's mother Rose, father Joe, brother Carl and sister Maria. She would regularly take Rose shopping and to lunch on Victoria's days off work.
6. Victoria continued to work full-time at Sussan during her relationship with Robert. She and Robert would visit his parents most weekends and quite often take them out for the day. Her evidence is that she was always invited to family gatherings and events.
7. She and Robert gave each other cards on days such as Christmas, Valentine's Day and birthdays.
8. Victoria's evidence is that when Robert's brother Carl and father Joe died, she was in the main car with Robert and his family for the funeral.
9. Following the death of Robert's father, Robert and Victoria would take Rose out every Sunday until Robert had a falling out with his mother and ceased all communication with her. During the time that Robert did not speak to his mother, she would ring Victoria to see if Victoria could get Robert to speak to her.
10. Victoria always had a very good relationship with Robert's mother. Her evidence is that she visited Rose on a daily basis in 2010 while Rose was in hospital in Mount Lawley.
11. Robert got on very well with Victoria's mother and would often visit her at 110 Matlock Street and do odd jobs around her home for her.
12. Victoria's evidence is that from time to time, all three of Robert's daughters attended her place of work to discuss matters and to generally talk about Robert with her. Her evidence was that Robert's three daughters barely spoke to or saw Robert and would only make contact with him around Christmas. He told Victoria on many occasions that he was disappointed with his daughters.
13. Victoria's evidence is that she encouraged Robert to have a relationship with all of his daughters but he did not seem to make any effort because, she said, he thought they did not respect their father.
14. Shortly after she moved into 11 Dwyer Street, she and Robert settled on a regular routine. Victoria would do all the cooking, cleaning, washing, ironing, making his lunch, and shopping for groceries, house and gardening items. Their regular routine included having breakfast every Sunday morning at McDonald's and then go home to watch the AFL when it was on, and otherwise generally relax. They would watch their favourite television shows and movies together.
15. Victoria's evidence was that Robert would not let her contribute to household bills. He told her that her contribution to the relationship was looking after him and the household by cooking, cleaning, shopping, buying him gifts, washing, ironing and making his lunch. He believed that his contribution was to pay the majority of the household bills. Victoria's evidence is that when she would do the grocery shopping, she would generally pay on her credit card and Robert would reimburse her by giving her cash.
16. As Victoria did all of the day-to-day shopping for food and household items, Robert rarely shopped for food although he did on occasions go with Victoria when she shopped on days off work and on weekends. Her evidence is that she mostly did the food shopping on the way home from work, and occasionally during her lunch break.
17. In cross-examination, Victoria's evidence was that she kept the receipts when she bought food, which Robert would check against the credit card statements. He would also check the amounts charged for petrol on Victoria's National Australia Bank statements.[57] Although it was suggested to her that Robert reimbursed her for the food that she had purchased, Victoria disagreed with that characterisation. Her evidence was that Robert would give her cash for lunch and other things, rather than reimburse her the exact amounts she had paid for food.
18. Victoria also rejected the suggestion that she kept her wages from Sussan for herself, but they did not have a joint account,[58] nor did they own real property together.
19. Victoria's evidence is that prior to moving in with Robert, she had owned a property in Hector Street, Tuart Hill and had done so since about February 1997. Her address on the title to the Hector Street property is shown as 110 Matlock Street, Mount Hawthorn, which was her mother's home address and where Victoria was living at the time she purchased the Hector Street property. Victoria's evidence was that she had not taken any steps to change her address and as a result council rate notices and Water Corporation notices for that property still go to her mother's Matlock Street address.
20. Victoria's evidence was that she was always in contact with her mother, whom she would visit on a daily basis.
21. Victoria's evidence is the Hector Street property has been rented out since soon after it was purchased, and that the real estate agent sent the rental statements to her at 11 Dwyer Street.
22. Victoria said that, having moved back to her mother's house at 110 Matlock Street, Mount Hawthorn following her separation from her husband, she changed her driver's licence details to her mother's address.
23. Cross-examined as to why her mobile telephone records showed her address as 110 Matlock Street, Victoria explained that was the address shown on her driver's licence when she joined the telecommunications supplier, and she was required to show photo identification by the supplier.[59]
24. She did not change the address for her Westpac bank statements because her former husband worked for that bank, and so she did not change her address.[60]
25. Victoria otherwise explained her use of different addresses, saying that when she had to provide photo identification or a person wanted to see her driver's licence, she gave her address as 110 Matlock Street, Mount Hawthorn, as it was just easier to show her driver's licence.[61]
26. Her evidence was that after she moved in with Robert, she did not change her address to 11 Dwyer Street. She said that early in her and Robert's relationship she received a parking ticket and told Robert. He became extremely angry and became very close to hitting her. As a result, she decided to leave her address on her driver's licence at her mother's address and did not tell Robert if she received a parking ticket or traffic infringement.
27. Victoria and Robert both applied for passports in about 2013. Although Robert completed an application for an Australian passport, he did not obtain the passport and ultimately did not travel overseas with Victoria.
28. Victoria agreed that Chum Taylor was a very close friend of Robert. She first met Mr Taylor when she was first going out with Robert in about 1998. She knew Robert and Mr Taylor would have coffee together on a Saturday.[62]
29. Mr Taylor would come to the Dwyer Street house, and Victoria would make coffee for him and Robert.[63]
30. John White used to visit Robert and Victoria with his children. Mr White was Rose-Marie's first husband. He called Robert often. Victoria's evidence at trial was that her 'sister-in-law Maria' had told her of Mr White's death 'a few years ago'. The last time Victoria saw Mr White was when he brought some flowers to Dwyer Street and gave her his condolences.
31. Mr White died prior to the trial, although the evidence did not disclose when he died.
32. In or about 2011 Robert and Victoria bought a dog, Chookie, together.
33. Robert ceased working, to Victoria's recollection, in about 2014.
34. In about 2017 Robert purchased a second‑hand Holden Barina. Victoria was included as an additional driver of the vehicle on the insurance policy.
35. In August 2017 Robert underwent a knee operation at St John of God Hospital in Subiaco. Victoria's evidence is that Robert told her not to tell his daughters or his mother he was having the operation. She said that she visited Robert every day during his stay, and took four weeks off work to care for him when he was released from hospital.
36. Victoria's evidence is that when she originally met Robert, he had private health cover through HBF, and suggested to Victoria that she should be covered by private health insurance.
37. Robert arranged for Victoria to be added to his private health cover, which was initially through HBF, then Medibank Private and finally BUPA.
38. Victoria's evidence was that when her brother Peter came to Perth for a visit, she, Peter and Robert would very often go out for dinner together.
39. She said that for many years Robert's accountant was John Palermo of Palermo Accountants, commencing in about 2005. Her evidence was that Robert would discuss his business dealings with her from time to time and told Victoria that he had disclosed her as his partner on his tax returns. She said that she always showed Robert as her partner in her tax returns.
40. Victoria agreed that she used to take documents to Mr Palermo's office for Robert.[64] Robert would tell her when he was going to see Mr Palermo,[65] but did not mention going out or having coffee with him.[66]
41. She told Mr Palermo that she was Robert's de facto partner. Mr Palermo's office would ask for some of her tax returns.[67]
42. Victoria did not recall when she and Robert discussed that he was putting her down as his de facto in his tax returns.[68] She did not remember when Robert first used the phrase 'de facto'. Robert introduced her to people as his missus.[69]
43. Victoria gave evidence in cross-examination that Robert had a falling out with John Palermo in 2017.[70] That was contrary to her affidavit evidence, which was that they fell out in 2014.[71] She was with H & R Block at the time.[72]
44. Her evidence was that she saw Robert's daughters each Christmas, including (other than Alison) in 2018.
45. Victoria's evidence was that Alison used to come into the Sussan store and relate messages that she wished Victoria to give to her father. On one occasion, Alison told Victoria that she was struggling with her business in Subiaco and that she was needing some money. Victoria said that she related that to Robert, that Alison was having financial difficulties.
46. Victoria said that Alison came to see her while she was working at the Subiaco store of Sussan on the afternoon of 24 December 2018. Her evidence is that Alison gave her a Christmas card addressed to Robert and herself, and said that she (Alison) was not going to be able to visit Robert and Victoria on Christmas Day, as she had something else on and would be too tired. Victoria's evidence is that Alison also gave her a candle.
47. Her evidence is that from time to time she and Robert would discuss getting married. On one occasion when they were having dinner with their friends Christina and Ashley Fulton, the subject of Robert and Victoria getting married was discussed. Victoria asked Christina if she would be her matron of honour.
48. Her evidence is that other than the last 12 to 18 months of their relationship, she and Robert enjoyed a physical and intimate relationship, and remained intimate during those last 12 to 18 months of his life.
49. To the best of her knowledge Robert was not seeing other women during their relationship and never gave her any reason to suspect that he was doing so.
50. Victoria's evidence is that she did not have any relationship with other men during her relationship with Robert. So far as she was concerned, she and Robert were living in a committed relationship.
51. Her evidence is that she and Robert socialised as a couple with people Robert felt comfortable with, which included John Rando and his girlfriend, Steve and Eve Bumbak, Tony Gobetti, and Ashley and Christina Fulton.
52. Victoria said that she and Robert discussed having wills prepared from time to time. Her evidence is that Robert told her in about 2015 that he was going to approach his friend John Rando to have a will prepared, but as far as Victoria knew Robert had never done so. The last time they discussed having wills made was in September 2018 after having watched a documentary on SBS television.[73]
53. Robert told Victoria that he did not have a will, and she accepted that.[74] They did not discuss what would happen if one of them died.[75]
54. After Robert's death, Victoria and the sisters searched the house for a will. The four of them made a thorough search of the house. She did so knowing that Robert had not left a will, because the girls wanted to search.[76]
55. Victoria's evidence is that Robert and she rarely socialised with his daughters other than when they visited the house at Dwyer Street on Christmas Day. Stephanie and Rose-Marie visited the house on Christmas Day 2018. On Christmas morning 2018, Robert's former brother-in-law Keith Slinger was also in attendance. Victoria's evidence was that it was a very happy morning, with people engaging in singing and dancing. After the guests left on Christmas Day Victoria's evidence is that she cooked, following which she went to visit her daughter.
56. Victoria's evidence is that several days after Robert's death she was involved in arranging Robert's funeral. Her evidence was that Stephanie told her that she had organised Mareena Purslowe to pick up the body, and Victoria told her she knew Carmel Markham because she used to come to Sussan's.[77] She said that Mrs Markham looked after them.[78]
57. Victoria said that the four of them went to the funeral parlour, and organised the funeral. Her evidence was that it was a joint effort,[79] and that she was involved in the organisation of the funeral.[80]
58. She confirmed in cross-examination that Stephanie acknowledged that Victoria was Robert's de facto in the meeting, and signed the form saying so.[81] Her evidence was that Mrs Markham 'asked [Stephanie] about the de facto', and Stephanie signed it.[82] She did not accept that Stephanie's evidence about what happened in the meeting was correct.[83]
59. She agreed that Stephanie was, according to Victoria, also involved in the funeral arrangements. Victoria said that they decided to use the undertakers Mareena Purslowe as Victoria knew Carmel Markham, who worked there and was a customer of Sussan. Victoria recalled sitting with Mrs Markham and Stephanie in the rooms at Mareena Purslow, and that she and Stephanie provided the information that Mrs Markham requested.
60. Victoria's evidence is that Stephanie provided some of the information to Mrs Markham and completed some of the documentation required including some forms provided by Mareena Purslowe. She said that she told Mrs Markham, in Stephanie's presence, that she (Victoria) was Robert's de facto.
61. Victoria's evidence is there was no tension or disagreement between her and Stephanie when they were speaking to Mrs Markham.
62. Although Victoria did not mention Alison and Rose-Marie in her affidavit, in cross-examination she referred to both of them having been present at the meeting with Mrs Markham. Her evidence was that they were all in the room together organising the funeral, making the arrangements and the details of the funeral.[84]
63. Victoria did not play any part in preparing a slideshow shown at Robert's funeral, due to her son being ill.[85] Victoria's evidence was that Stephanie had access to all the photographs at Dwyer Street, and organised the photographs for the funeral presentation.[86]
64. Victoria obtained three bank cheques payable to Robert, in respect of which the customer record slips were in evidence.[87] The first, dated 19 October 2004, was for $5000 payable to 'Down Under Auto Sales', which Victoria explained was to purchase a car Robert wished to buy.[88] The second, dated 25 May 2005, was for $10,000 payable to Robert, and the third was for $1500, dated 5 October 2005, payable to 'Gold National Visa Card'. Victoria's evidence was that she gave that to Robert to buy tools for his business,[89] while the third was used to pay down Robert's credit card.[90]
65. Those amounts were not repaid, and constituted gifts she made to Robert.[91]
66. Her evidence was that Robert did not associate with John Palermo out of work. Robert did not ever mention John Palermo senior.
67. Victoria swore an affidavit on 13 September 2024 responding to the affidavits filed on behalf of the then defendants.
68. Victoria's evidence is that Stephen Combley did visit Dwyer Street, but not anywhere near 50 or 60 times.
69. In May 2013 Victoria applied to the Bank of Queensland for a loan to purchase her daughter's half-interest in a property.[92] Victoria's evidence was that she wanted to purchase her daughter's interest so that the property, in which her son owned the other half-interest, to avoid the property being sold. Her evidence was that she discussed doing so with Robert, and that he was very supportive.
70. Her evidence in cross-examination was that she mistakenly stated in the loan application that she had lived at Dwyer Street for 25 years, when it should have been 15 years.[93]
71. Victoria gave evidence in a direct and considered manner. Her evidence was largely consistent with the contemporaneous documents. Victoria was clear as to her evidence when she disagreed with a proposition put to her in cross-examination. Although she occasionally stated that she could not remember a particular date, that was in a context where she was being asked to recall events over 20 years ago in some cases, so that her inability to recall was understandable.[94]
72. I found her to be a straightforward and truthful witness, although I find that she was mistaken in her evidence as to when Robert had a falling out with Mr Palermo, because Mr Palermo had recommenced work for Robert by 2017, but that error does not cause me to doubt her evidence in any substantial way, given that Victoria was giving evidence in 2024.
73. In general, I found her credibility to be unaffected by cross‑examination. I refer below to specific conflicts of evidence between Victoria and other witnesses, but in general I have accepted her evidence.

1. Mr Wright deposed[95] to having known Victoria since approximately 2002. Victoria was a close friend of his late wife Elizabeth. From about 2003 Mr Wright and his wife lived apart, but remained good friends and were still married at the time of her death in April 2021.
2. Mr Wright's evidence was that he and his late wife socialised with Robert and Victoria from time to time for about 12 months, following which Elizabeth and Victoria continued their relationship. He considered Victoria and Robert a couple.
3. He and his wife attended the Dwyer Street house some days after Robert's death at Victoria's request. Mr Wright's evidence was that it was apparent that Victoria was extremely distressed. It was the first time he had been to Dwyer Street.
4. He deposed that Victoria told him on that occasion that Robert did not have a will, but she, his wife and himself conducted a search for any will Robert might have left over several days. They did not find one. Victoria told them that there was a safe, but she did not have a key to it.
5. He said that the safe was subsequently opened in the presence of Victoria's solicitor, Mr Wright, his wife and 'one of the Rispoli girls' some months later. No will was found in the safe.
6. Mr Wright also deposed to having met Dario Sussa in April 2019 at Mr Sussa's house. The evidence of Messrs Wright and Sussa as to what they discussed at that meeting is diametrically opposed, to the extent that their respective versions of events cannot be reconciled.
7. It is convenient to address Mr Wright's evidence as to what occurred during that meeting and his credibility later in these reasons, in the context of Mr Sussa's evidence.

1. Ms Letizia stated in her affidavit[96] that she first met Robert in about 1980. She first met Victoria in about 2006 at the latest.
2. Ms Letizia would call into the Perth Sussan's Store to speak to Victoria at least once a week for many years. She continued to keep in touch with Victoria when she moved to the Sussans store in Subiaco.
3. Her evidence was that Robert and Victoria attended her son's wedding on 21 February 2009 and her daughter's wedding on 19 December 2009, both as a couple. She invited both to her 60th birthday party in 2013 but could not recall if Robert attended. Victoria did.
4. In cross-examination, her evidence was that Robert had attended her daughter's wedding.[97]
5. Ms Letizia was aware, from what Victoria told her, that from time to time Robert would give Victoria a belting. She saw bruises on Victoria's face and arm on one occasion,[98] and bruises on her legs and arms on the second occasion.[99]
6. After the second occasion Ms Letizia told Victoria that she could not keep seeing evidence of Robert's abuse of Victoria. Her evidence was that those two incidents occurred over something like 12 months, in the early days of Victoria and Robert's relationship.
7. In the latter years of their relationship Victoria no longer mentioned to her that Robert was hitting her, nor did Ms Letizia see evidence of his doing so.
8. Her evidence was that approximately six months before Robert's death Ms Letizia asked him when he was going to put a ring on Victoria's finger. Robert said to her that he was thinking about it and was talking to Vicki about when they should get married.
9. Ms Letizia considered Robert and Victoria to be in a committed long‑term relationship, and to have been for many years. She considered them a couple. Robert did not say to her that he was considering ending his relationship with Victoria.
10. Her evidence was that Victoria lived at 11 Dwyer Street for all the time she had known her. She would visit Victoria at 11 Dwyer Street and picked her up from there for lunch or coffee. She saw Victoria there about half a dozen times.
11. Ms Letizia would sometimes call Victoria outside of working hours on the landline at Karrinyup, and Robert would sometimes answer. She would then chat to Robert before he handed the phone to Victoria.
12. Ms Letizia and her husband did not socialise with Victoria and Robert as a couple because her husband did not want to socialise with Robert.
13. Ms Letizia attended Robert's funeral. After the funeral people gathered in a lounge area at the funeral home. She did not observe Victoria speaking about Robert's estate. Her recollection was that Victoria was quite subdued and was one of the first to leave.
14. Ms Letizia gave her evidence in cross-examination in an honest and forthright manner. Her credibility was unaffected by cross‑examination, which was brief. I accept her evidence.

1. Mr Gobetti deposed[100] that he knew Robert before Robert married his 'first wife' Kerry. He met Robert through Robert's brother Carl.
2. He met Robert's daughters at the funeral.[101]
3. He knew Robert when he was running a car yard in Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn and later when he was running a muffler repair business, also in Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn.
4. Mr Gobetti moved to Karrinyup, near 11 Dwyer Street, approximately four years before Robert's death. He was able to walk to visit Robert, and Robert would often walk to visit Mr Gobetti at his home. He and Robert became much closer after Mr Gobetti moved to Karrinyup.
5. He and Robert would have fish and chips together at North Beach with friends of Mr Gobetti most Fridays for about 18 months to two years before Robert's death. Mr Gobetti would collect Robert from 11 Dwyer Street to travel to North Beach together. Quite often Victoria would be at home when they returned, or otherwise arrived home while he was there. Robert would greet Victoria with normal pleasantries. Most times the three of them would have a coffee together, and then Mr Gobetti would go home. On those occasions, he would stay half an hour, but sometimes it might be three hours.[102]
6. Mr Gobetti's evidence was that he and his wife had meals at restaurants together with Robert and Victoria as a couple four or five times a year, in addition to having dinner at each other's houses.[103] After Mr Gobetti moved to Karrinyup, he recalled having a drink with his wife, Robert and Victoria around Christmas time most years, at either Robert's house or their house.
7. He was not aware that Robert had been physically violent to Victoria.[104] He thought Robert loved her.[105]
8. He formed the view that Robert and Victoria were a couple and that they were living in a relationship from his observations of them. His evidence was that Robert told him that he adored Victoria on more than one occasion, and did not ever tell him that he was considering leaving Victoria or bringing their relationship to an end.
9. He last saw Robert the Friday before his death, or the Friday before that. He attended Robert's funeral.
10. Mr Gobetti presented as an honest witness, who gave his evidence in a forthright manner. Nothing he said in cross-examination caused me to doubt his evidence.
11. I accept his evidence.

1. Mrs Fulton's affidavit evidence[106] was that she had known Robert since about 1992. She is a close friend of Victoria.
2. She and her husband Ashley met Robert when they were operating a used car business in Leederville, and had business dealings with him. Their business relationship developed into a friendship.
3. Her evidence was that shortly after she met Robert he introduced her to Victoria at Robert's business premises, although she was unable to give an exact time as to when that occurred. When asked what year or decade they had been introduced, she said that it was definitely the 2000s.[107]
4. From March 2000 Mrs Fulton and her husband owned a commercial property adjacent to Robert's business premises. They had a lot of contact with each other as a result. Mrs Fulton's evidence was that Robert would often call into his business on a Sunday. Victoria was with him on nearly every occasion, and it was common to see Victoria at the premises after work times. Mrs Fulton would speak to the both of them. When Mrs Fulton went to their home to drop off crayfish, Victoria was there.
5. Victoria and Robert attended the Fultons' daughter's wedding in about 2007, evidence corroborated by a wedding invitation addressed to the both of them which refers to the reception being held in March 2007 at the Fultons' home.[108]
6. Mrs Fulton's evidence was that she and her husband regularly socialised with Robert and Victoria, and that between 2015 and 2018 Robert and Victoria attended the Fultons' house for dinners on several occasions. They always came as a couple to the Fultons' house.
7. Her evidence was that Victoria had not told her that Robert was physically violent, but that did not surprise her because Robert was a very good friend of her husband's and she did not think that Victoria would have liked to have said bad things about Robert to her.[109] Mrs Fulton had no reason to suspect that was the nature of their relationship when she knew them.
8. Her evidence was that in 2017 and 2018 both Robert and Victoria had indicated to her that they were planning to get married. Victoria asked Mrs Fulton to be a bridesmaid in 2017 during a dinner at the Fultons' house, to which she agreed. Mrs Fulton asked whether a date had been set for the wedding and was told that it had not.
9. Mrs Fulton's evidence was that from her observations and dealings with Robert and Victoria they were in a relationship for at least 20 years prior to Robert's death and remained in that relationship until Roberts' death.
10. Mrs Fulton gave evidence in a direct manner, without prevarication. The credibility and reliability of her evidence was unaffected by cross-examination.
11. I accept her evidence.

1. Mr Bumbak deposed[110] that he had known Robert, who was approximately 10 years older than him, for as long as he could remember.
2. He met Robert at the garage owned by the Rispoli family in Osborne Park, to which Mr Bumbak's father sometimes took him. He considered Robert to be a close friend.
3. Robert did work on Mr Bumbak's trucks. Robert had a habit of inviting friends to attend Robert's Westcoat Mufflers business in Mount Hawthorn on Friday afternoons, and Mr Bumbak attended most Fridays, commencing in 1997 or 1998.[111]
4. Mr Bumbak's evidence was that Victoria would drop in to the functions on her way home from work. On occasions she would ring Robert on his mobile if Victoria was not there. Robert would tell those present she had called.[112]
5. He and his wife Irene socialised with Robert and Victoria. They would attend each other's houses for meals and go to restaurants together, probably about 10 times a year.[113] That continued until Robert's death.[114] Mr Bumbak would call in to see Robert at Dwyer Street from time to time, Victoria being present on most occasions.
6. His evidence was that on a number of occasions he and his wife would call into Dwyer Street to visit Victoria and Robert on a work‑day evening, and that at about 9.00 pm to 9.30 pm Victoria would excuse herself, come back in pyjamas and say that she was tired and had to get up early to go to work. Victoria would then wish them good night and go upstairs.[115]
7. Mr Bumbak was an Elvis impersonator. He invited Robert and Victoria to attend his shows from time to time. They had attended half a dozen of his shows over the 21 years he performed. Robert never attended without Victoria.
8. Based on his observations of Robert and Victoria, Mr Bumbak considered them to be in a long term committed relationship and that they acted the same as a married couple.
9. Mr Bumbak gave evidence that Robert had once told him that he had another daughter, with a woman other than his 'first wife'. Robert had shown him a letter from the daughter.[116]
10. Robert also discussed how his businesses was going with him.[117]
11. Mr Bumbak said that approximately six to 12 months before his death Robert told him that he was pushing for Victoria to retire, and that he wanted to spend the rest of his life with her.[118]
12. His evidence was that Robert had never confided in him that he had been physically violent toward Victoria, but that Robert would always 'go off' at Victoria, 'just a bit of verbal stuff'.[119] Sometimes, she would sneer back at him. Mr Bumbak regarded it as a 'typical, like, husband/wife relationship.'[120] He said that he thought that Robert had confided in him once that he was going to propose to Victoria, but it did not happen. He agreed that was going back to the early 2000s.[121]
13. In re‑examination, Mr Bumbak clarified that Victoria might say something, and Robert would 'say a quip and sort of fly off the handle', saying 'Vicky, what are you going on about'.[122] Mr Bumbak said that it was not like an angry situation or where he felt uncomfortable. He had never seen Robert totally angry or want to be physical.[123]
14. He last saw Robert a few weeks before his death.
15. Mr Bumbak gave his oral evidence in a direct manner, without hesitation or prevarication. He presented as an honest and reliable witness. His credibility was unaffected by cross-examination.
16. I accept his evidence as truthful.

1. Mr Rando is a lawyer who had been in practice for more than 50 years as at the date of the trial. As with the other witnesses, he gave his evidence‑in‑chief by affidavit.[124]
2. He first met Robert in about 1966.[125] Mr Rando became very good friends with Robert in the early years of his practice, having acted for him in Family Court proceedings relating to a daughter Robert had fathered while married to his first wife.
3. Mr Rando had no recollection or record of having prepared a will for Robert. He ceased acting for Robert in the mid-1980s.[126]
4. Mr Rando met Victoria approximately 20 years before the trial. During the time he has known Victoria, Mr Rando has been in a relationship. Mr Rando and his partner socialised with Robert and Victoria as two couples during the time he knew them, at restaurants, Dwyer Street and at his partner's home.
5. His evidence is that from time to time Robert would talk to him about Victoria. Although he could not remember the exact words used, his impression was that Robert and Victoria were in a committed and loving relationship and that Robert felt very much about Victoria. He considered them to be an item, so far as he was able to observe.[127]
6. Mr Rando's evidence was that once every six to eight weeks over a period of about three years prior to Robert's death he would meet Robert and Victoria, they would have a meal together and they would sing together. Victoria was always there on those occasions.
7. Mr Rando could not remember the last time he saw Robert, but it would have been within six months of his death. So far as Mr Rando was aware, Robert and Victoria were living together. Robert regularly asked Mr Rando whether he and his partner could join Robert and Victoria for breakfast on Sundays.[128]
8. It was put to Mr Rando in cross-examination that Stephanie had telephoned him in January 2019 to ask whether he had a will for Robert, and he accepted that she had. He said that he could not find a will.[129] Mr Rando was then asked whether he had told Stephanie that he had lost touch with her father some years before, which Mr Rando said, in substance, was not correct. He repeated that he had socialised with Robert and Victoria for the three years up to Robert's death.[130]
9. Robert and he talked about what he was doing, his personal life and what interests he had. He did try to talk to Robert about whether he should cut back on his drinking. They did not talk about Robert's businesses.[131]
10. Victoria did not tell Mr Rando that Robert had been violent toward her and neither did Robert.[132]
11. In re-examination, Mr Rando accepted that he may have told Stephanie that he had ceased acting for Robert years ago.[133]
12. Mr Rando presented as an honest witness. He answered the questions put to him without hesitation. His reliability and credibility as a witness were unaffected by cross-examination. I accept his evidence.

1. Mr Shearwood has lived in the property opposite the Dwyer Street property since 1992. Mr Shearwood could see Robert's house from his front door, upstairs bedroom window, lounge room balcony, and driveway.[134]
2. He was 82 years old at the time he gave evidence.
3. His evidence was that Robert and Victoria lived in the Dwyer Street house for at least 25 years prior to Robert's death. He had not had a close relationship with Robert and Victoria but had had brief conversations with them from time to time and seen them coming and going from their property. He had never been in their house.[135]
4. He would frequently see Robert, Victoria or both of them walking a dog.
5. He gave evidence that on one occasion Robert approached Mr Shearwood and his wife and complained about one of Robert's next door neighbours, saying words to the effect that the neighbours kept shining lights on the side of the house and it was keeping 'Vicki' awake at night.
6. Mr Shearwood observed Victoria go to work early in the morning and return home late in the afternoon. In cross-examination, his evidence was that Victoria left the house occasionally on foot, but he more often saw her when she left the house by car, which he assumed was to go to work.[136]
7. He saw Victoria going into the house all the time for at least 20 years, including bringing in groceries. From his observations Robert and Victoria were living at Dwyer Street and had been doing on a continuous basis for many years. They seemed to him to be a couple living together.
8. Mr Shearwood knew that Victoria worked for Sussan's.[137]
9. In cross-examination, Mr Sherwood stated that he first really noticed that they were living together in the late 1990s, around 1997, 1998 or 1999.[138] He accepted that, if Victoria had given evidence that she had moved into Dwyer Street in 1998, that would be correct, and that he had made a mistake in stating that it had been 25 years.[139]
10. Asked in cross-examination, Mr Shearwood said that he had seen Victoria go in and out of the front door at Dwyer Street repeatedly. He conceded that he could not say whether Victoria had a key to the front door. Told that Victoria had said that she never had a key to the front door, he accepted that and said that she got in anyway, although he did not know how. His evidence was that he mainly saw Victoria enter the house through the front door.[140]
11. He did not see her leave the house every morning, but on a very regular basis. Victoria was at Dwyer Street on the weekends as well.[141]
12. He did not ever see anything to suggest Robert had been physically violent towards Victoria.
13. Mr Shearwood was an impressive witness. He made concessions and otherwise clarified his evidence in cross-examination when appropriate. I found him to be an honest and reliable witness. I did not consider his credibility to have been affected by cross-examination.
14. I accept his evidence.

1. Mr Varelis is Victoria's brother.
2. He deposed[142] that he has lived on the east coast for many years, having left Perth in late 1989 or 1990. His evidence was that he maintained regular contact with Victoria by telephone.
3. He first met Robert in about 1997.
4. He deposed that during his visits to Perth, he would always catch up with Victoria and Robert. On most occasions when he was in Perth he would visit Victoria at 11 Dwyer Street. Robert was present on most of those occasions.
5. Mr Varelis said that he would usually have dinner with Victoria and Robert at least once each time when he visited Perth over the last 25 years. They would usually go out to a restaurant and return to the Dwyer Street residence for coffee and desert, after which he would leave alone to return to his mother's house.
6. His evidence was that he spoke to Robert on a regular basis by telephone when he was not in Perth, and got on well with him. He usually spoke to Robert when he called Victoria at Dwyer Street. Mr Varelis' evidence was that from the time he first met Robert he accepted him as Victoria's partner and treated him as one of his extended family.
7. Mr Varelis' evidence was that it was not unusual for him to call Victoria on the Dwyer Street home landline, particularly in the early years as the cost of making mobile phone calls was expensive. He could not recall ever telephoning his mother or anyone else on the landline to speak to Victoria after she started living with Robert and before his death.[143]
8. Mr Varelis recalled an occasion on the morning of 6 September 2018 when he was in Perth and staying with his mother. On that day he went for a walk down Scarborough Beach Road to Lynford Motors to look at cars, and was joined by his brother. A short time later, Robert and Victoria stopped outside the car yard and greeted Mr Varelis and his brother. He could not recall whether it was Victoria or Robert who mentioned that they were either going to or returning from McDonald's restaurant.
9. The conversation then moved on to cars and Mr Varelis mentioned to Robert that he was looking to buy a car to restore and customise. Robert asked him whether he was interested in a joint project with Robert to restore a vintage Valiant. Mr Varelis could see that Robert was particularly enthusiastic about the project.
10. Mr Varelis deposed that there was nothing in Robert's demeanour towards his sister during their discussions concerning the Valiant that indicated to him that there was a problem with their relationship.
11. His evidence was that Robert and Victoria did not travel together to the east coast to visit Mr Varelis and his wife, although he did invite them to do so on several occasions. He recalled Robert mentioning that he was no longer up to travelling on the occasions that either Mr Varelis or his wife extended an invitation to visit them.
12. As far as Mr Varelis was aware Robert and Victoria had been a couple living in a committed relationship for more than 20 years and were in that relationship until Robert's death on Christmas Day 2018.
13. He had not known Victoria to live anywhere other than 11 Dwyer Street from the time he met Robert in about 1997. He formed the view that she lived at that address from telephoning her on the landline at that house. It was not unusual that he would speak to Robert when he called Victoria on the landline.
14. There were times when he called Victoria's mobile phone, and Robert would answer and say that Victoria was indisposed because of cooking, cleaning or some other domestic chore. Mr Varelis would then have a conversation with Robert and telephone Victoria later.
15. He last spoke with Robert on Christmas Day 2018 when Victoria called to wish Mr Varelis and his wife a Merry Christmas. Robert passed on his seasons greetings during that call. He recalled Victoria saying that Robert's two daughters were present, which surprised Mr Varelis because he had assumed that Robert had only one daughter. Mr Varelis' evidence was that Robert had never mentioned that he had two other daughters.
16. Mr Varelis recalled speaking with Stephanie sometime on 26 December 2018 to pass on his condolences regarding Robert's death. Stephanie mentioned to him that she had stayed the night at Dwyer Street with Victoria, both going to Stephanie's grandmother's house later that day to inform her about Robert's death.
17. His evidence was that he did not know and had never had any communication with Mrs Markham.
18. He was cross-examined about his knowledge of Robert's physical abuse of Victoria. His evidence was that he considered that had lessened over the 10 years before Robert's death.
19. Mr Varelis gave evidence in a straightforward manner. His credibility was not significantly affected by cross-examination. I accept his evidence.

1. Mrs Tyers deposed that she is a close friend of Victoria, whom she met approximately 20 years ago while both were working in the Hay Street Mall.[144] In cross-examination, Mrs Tyers said that Victoria was more like a sister to her.[145]
2. Mrs Tyers met Robert through Victoria. Robert would pick Victoria up from work and on a few occasions would drop Ms Tyers home on the way. Her evidence was that from the time she and Victoria became close friends Robert and Victoria were living together in Karrinyup and so far as Mrs Tyers was aware they remained in that relationship until Robert's death.
3. She did not really socialise with Robert.[146]
4. Mrs Tyers deposed that just before she and her husband left for an overseas holiday in December 2018 she had a conversation with Robert. In that conversation Robert had told her that he agreed with her that Victoria should retire. He said that they should start to enjoy themselves and slow down. Mrs Tyers then told Robert that she was going to Europe for a holiday, and Robert said words the effect that that was something that he and Victoria should do.
5. Her evidence was that over the past 20 years she and Victoria had spoken on the telephone at least twice a week and often more, and that Victoria had never suggested that her relationship with Robert had come to an end. Nor had Robert ever told her that he was considering ending their relationship.
6. Mrs Tyers considered Victoria and Robert to be an item, and so far as she was aware had been a couple for more than 20 years, until Robert's death. She never though Victoria to be with anyone other than Robert.
7. In cross-examination Mrs Tyers stated that on a few occasions she rang the house number, but which I understood that she rang the landline at Dwyer Street, to speak to Victoria and Robert would come on the line and say hello.
8. Her evidence was that Victoria had told her about Robert having been physically violent towards her, but that she had not seen anything to suggest that. She said Victoria told her that he beat her (Victoria) up and was quite violent.[147]
9. Mrs Tyers' evidence was the violence had occurred before they became close friends.[148] She had invited Robert to her wedding, notwithstanding that she knew he was violent, because Robert was Victoria's partner.[149]
10. Mrs Tyers presented as an honest and truthful witness. She gave evidence in her cross-examination in a straightforward manner.
11. I accept her evidence.

1. Mrs Markham deposed that she was involved in the funeral industry for approximately 15 years, until she left the industry in 2021.[150] She became acquainted with Victoria through shopping at Sussans' store in Subiaco.
2. She became aware, through Victoria, that Victoria had a partner Robert, whom she later learned was Robert Rispoli. Her evidence was that it was obvious from talking with Victoria at the Subiaco shop over four or five years that Victoria had a partner called Robert.
3. Mrs Markham never met Robert.[151]
4. She received a telephone call from Victoria in late December 2018. Victoria told her that her partner Robert had passed away and asked Mareena Purslowe to conduct his funeral. She agreed and arranged to meet Victoria and Robert's daughters at the Mareena Purslowe premises in Subiaco.
5. I infer from Mrs Markham's email signature[152] that she was the manager of those premises at the time.
6. The initial meeting was held on 2 January 2019. The purpose of that meeting was to arrange the funeral, book times and dates and obtain family details for the death certificate required by Births, Deaths and Marriages.
7. Mrs Markham's evidence was that meetings of that type usually took an hour to an hour and 15 minutes. It was not suggested to her that the meeting on 2 January 2019 took any less time.
8. Mrs Markham had not met Robert's daughters before that day.[153]
9. Mrs Markham's recollection was that Victoria, Alison, Stephanie and Rose-Marie all seemed to be relaxed, albeit grief and sadness were present. Her view was that there did not seem to be any tensions between them.
10. Mrs Markham's recollection was that Victoria and the three sisters all contributed to providing the information sought and no one was particularly dominant at the meeting. Victoria was quieter, but Mrs Markham's evidence was that people are often in a state of shock after someone they love has died.[154]
11. Her evidence was that during that meeting she was told that Stephanie would be the person to whom Mareena Purslowe were to render their invoice and as such Stephanie was included in the funeral services agreement as the authorised person. She ascertained reasonably early in the meeting that Stephanie was going to be the authorised person.[155]
12. Mrs Markham deposed that she was told that Robert was in a de facto relationship with Victoria and that information was included in the application for a death certificate.
13. She did not recall who told her that Robert was in a de facto relationship.[156]
14. Mrs Markham deposed that there was no doubt in her mind that it was confirmed on 2 January 2019 that Robert and Victoria were living in a de facto relationship and that no one at the meeting disputed that was the case.
15. She said that she did not pre-populate information on documents such as applications to cremate and did not do so on 2 January 2019.
16. She did not personally lodge applications for death certificates at Mareena Purslowe. That was generally undertaken by the receptionist.
17. Three documents were prepared during the meeting. One was the funeral service agreement between the funeral home and Stephanie.[157]
18. Although Mrs Markham stated in her affidavit that she always used a pen and paper in meetings, it became apparent in the course of her re-examintion that the funeral service agreement had been prepared using a small laptop.[158]
19. Relevantly, the funeral services agreement described Robert's marital status as 'Defacto'.
20. Her usual practice was to ask questions to obtain the information required for the agreement. She would ask a question regarding marital status. She did not recall who gave her the information that Robert was in a de facto relationship.[159]
21. The funeral service agreement was signed towards the end of the meeting.[160] Mrs Markham's practice was to walk people through the agreement. She would usually stay with a page and go through it, asking whether they were ok with all this. She would say 'Go through it, if you're happy with it all, please sign'.[161]
22. Her evidence was that no-one present had any issues with what was in the funeral services agreement.[162]
23. Immediately before the section containing Stephanie's name, address and contact details, the funeral services agreement stated 'I the undersigned have read and understand this Funeral Service Agreement, in particular the Schedule of Estimated Charges and the Terms and Conditiions set out below', and 'I confirm that we have verified that information contained in this document is accurate to our best knowledge.' Stephanie's signature appears on the document below both statements, in the section containing her contact details.
24. In re-examination, Mrs Markham recalled that the funeral services agreement was prepared using a small iPad like laptop, which was used for funeral arrangements. The funeral services agreement would then be printed out before signing. She would have to run upstairs to get the agreement off the printer and come back for signing.
25. The other two documents comprised printed forms, completed in handwriting. The first was a single page, titled 'Application for Cremation and Instruction for Ashes'.[163] The application identified Stephanie as the applicant, and bore her signature. It did not contain any information as to Robert's relationship status.
26. The second was an Application for Permit to Cremate under the Cremation Act 1929 (WA).[164] Mrs Markham's evidence is that document was also a single page, printed on both sides. On the front page, Stephanie was identified as the applicant, Robert's marital status was recorded as 'De facto', and Stephanie identified as the 'Nearest surviving relative'. That term was asterisked, with a note stating that the term was explained at the end of the form. At the bottom of the front page, two boxes were ticked, identifying the applicant (i.e. Stephanie) as the administrator of the deceased and 'nearest surviving relative of the deceased'.
27. Stephanie signed the form on the reverse side. At the bottom of the reverse side of the form the following appears in reasonably small type:

*The nearest surviving relative of a deceased person is the first person who is available from the following persons in the order of priority listed-

(a) the person who, immediately before the death, was living as-

(i) the spouse of the deceased;

(ii) a de facto partner of the deceased and who is at least 18 years of age;

(b) a person, who, immediately before the death, was the spouse of the deceased;

(c) a son or daughter of the deceased who is at least 18 years of age.'

1. The identification of Stephanie, rather than Victoria, as the applicant is inconsistent with Victoria having been Robert's de facto partner immediately before his death, but is itself inconsistent with Robert's marital status being recorded as 'De facto'. Mrs Markham was not asked about the discrepancy.
2. The Application for Permit to Cremate form is sent to a referee doctor, who issues the permit.[165]
3. Mrs Markham did not recall who told her that Robert was in a de facto relationship, but her evidence was that she also knew that information, as she knew Victoria from other cicumstances. She said that she would confirm any information she wrote on the document because it was going to Births Deaths and Marriages.
4. Mrs Markham's evidence was that she always used a pen and paper in meetings,[166] although, as I have said, she was mistaken on this point.
5. She deposed that there was no doubt in her mind that on 2 January 2019 it was confirmed that Robert and Victoria were living in a de facto relationship and that no one at the meeting disputed that was the case.
6. Mrs Markham said there was a box on the form that was ticked if the deceased was in a de facto relationship, and it was ticked. Her evidence was that all four women knew it was ticked, because they could see what she was writing from around the table and because Stephanie had signed the form.
7. Mrs Markham's evidence was that she did not prepopulate information on documents such as applications to cremate and did not do so on that occasion. The Application for Cremation and Instruction for Ashes form was in her handwriting. She identified her signature and what she presumed was that of Stephanie on the form.
8. She also identified Stephanie's signature on the Application for Permit to Cremate form.
9. Mrs Markham did not provide copies of those documents to all four women. [167] Her evidence was that the signed forms remained in the funeral home's folder.
10. She did not recall if there was any information that Stephanie was unable to provide in the meeting.[168]
11. In cross-examination, Mrs Markham was asked whether she became aware that there was a disagreement about what had occurred in the meeting. She thought she first learned of that disagreement from her administrator when the death certificate was being collected.[169]
12. Where there were a couple of parties involved in a funeral, Mrs Markham would often offer to get two death certificates for them.[170]
13. Mrs Markham had no direct knowledge of that dispute. She was then asked, without objection, as to what she understood the disagreement which had arisen to be, and said that she thought Kerrie said that there was some issue with collecting the death certificate, and that she did not know why. Mrs Markham's evidence was that was probably the first time she was aware that there was any family conflict.[171]
14. Asked what she thought that conflict to be, Mrs Markham said that she did not think that anything had been mentioned about Victoria being the de facto partner of Robert. She thought the dispute was just about who was going to get the death certificate.[172]
15. She was asked whether she recalled that, at some point later, there were various emails exchanged with her office which indicated that, at no stage, did Stephanie accept that Victoria was the de facto partner of Robert. Mrs Markham said that she was not sure if she obtained that information by email or verbally. Her evidence was that was an issue that was raised later. She thought it was one of the daughters who raised that issue, but she was not sure.[173]
16. Mrs Markham's evidence was to the effect that she went through the forms asking questions, and ticked the boxes in the forms based on her answers. Those present could see her doing so.[174]
17. Her standard practice was to show the completed form to the person who was to sign it. She taught staff the same way.[175] Mrs Markham subsequently agreed in re-examination that was her invariable practice.[176]
18. Mrs Markham's evidence was that there was every opportunity for Stephanie to read the contents of the documents carefully. Mrs Markham said she was not hiding anything.[177]
19. She was quite certain that she would have shown Stephanie the form that described Robert as being a de facto partner and made sure that she was satisfied with it before Stephanie signed it.[178]
20. Asked whether she disputed Stephanie's evidence that she was simply handed the forms and asked to sign them, Mrs Markham said that she did.[179] She said, in effect, that she always went through the forms with family members. They were legal forms.[180]
21. Mrs Markham could not say with any certainty if it was Stephanie who said that her father was a de facto, but made the point in cross‑examination that there were four people in the room, and that anyone had an opportunity to dispute what she was writing in the form.[181]
22. Alison would have been able to read the forms. They were seated around an oval table.[182]
23. Asked whether the information regarding Robert being a 'de facto' could have been inserted because of her knowledge of Victoria's relationship, as opposed to being instructed to that effect, Mrs Markham said that she knew Victoria was in a de facto relationship, but as she went through the form she would be saying out loud what she was writing.
24. Asked whether she was 'quite certain' that would have been information given to her in the meeting, Mrs Markham said that she did not know. The information was in her head already.[183]
25. Questioned as to whether she could not say with any certainty whether Stephanie provided that information, Mrs Markham said she could not.[184]
26. Mrs Markham was not asked whether Victoria may have provided that information in the meeting.
27. In re-examination, Mrs Markham stated that she would have shown those present what she had written on the Application for Permit to Cremate before it was signed, and said that the information in the form was very important information.[185]
28. Mrs Markham was shown a letter in cross-examination from Mareena Purslowe dated 9 August 2022 signed by a Maree Friebe. Mrs Markham identified Ms Friebe to be a funeral arranger conductor. Mrs Markham had worked with her.[186]
29. In that letter, addressed to 'whom it may concern', Ms Friebe stated that an error occurred relating to the submission of the death information for Robert of the issue of his death certificate. The letter went on to state:

It appears that approval to submit the version sent to Births Deaths and Marriages Agency at the time, was given by a person not authorised to do so.

The approval should have come from Ms Stephanie Rispoli, as she is the administrator of the funeral. However, Ms Rispoli did not give approval to submit the document received by BDM, in particular, the reference to Robert's defacto status.

1. No one spoke to her about the incident referred to in the letter. She found that surprising.[187] Mrs Markham subsequently said that no one came to say to Mrs Markham that an error had been made. The first time she saw evidence of a complaint and how it was dealt with was when she was shown the letter in court.[188]
2. She was not aware that Mareena Purslowe Funerals had written to Stephanie to apologise for something.[189]
3. Mrs Markham's evidence in cross-examination was that she had never seen the letter.[190] That was contrary to her affidavit, where Mrs Markham having deposed that she had been shown the letter, and that Ms Friebe did not work for Mareena Purslowe as at 2 January 2019.
4. She was not cross-examined about the discrepancy.
5. Mrs Markham deposed that she had no knowledge or recollection of anyone complaining to her about the registration of Robert's death and the subsequent issue of his death certificate.
6. Mrs Markham also deposed that she did not have any recollection of having a conversation with Stephanie and Alison on 14 January 2019 regarding the application for Robert's death certificate, although she recalled Alison contacting her some months after the funeral to tell Mrs Markham that Victoria should not be on the death certificate. Alison invited her to lunch to discuss the matter but Mrs Markham declined.
7. Mrs Markham was not cross-examined on that evidence. In particular, she was not cross-examined as to whether she had been instructed not to include reference to Victoria in Robert's death certificate, or the issue of the certificate.
8. Nor was Mrs Markham cross-examined about the existence of a temporary death certificate.
9. There was also no cross-examination of Mrs Markham as to whether she had been subjected to any pressure to issue Robert's death certificate or whether she knew of any such pressure being applied to the Mareena Purslowe staff.
10. In re-examination, Mrs Markham recalled that the funeral services agreement was prepared using a small iPad like laptop, which was used for funeral arrangements. The funeral services agreement would then be printed out before signing. She would have to run upstairs to get the agreement off the printer and come back for signing.[191]
11. I found Mrs Markham to be an honest and truthful witness. Although her recollection was incorrect on a number of points, she was being asked to recall the events of a single meeting which occurred more than six years previously, and which, on her version of events, was unremarkable. Mrs Markham acknowledged, as honest witnesses do, the possibility that her recollection of events might be flawed.
12. There are conflicts between the evidence of Mrs Markham and the sisters as to what happened at the meeting on 2 January 2019, which I address below. There is also the issue whether Mrs Markham was ever instructed not to refer to Victoria in the death certificate, which was not put to Mrs Markham, which is also addressed bellow.

1. Ms Pompilio is one of Robert's nieces. Her mother was Robert's sister.
2. Ms Pompilio deposed[192] that she saw Robert at family functions. Robert's parents held regular functions which she attended as a child and as an adult. On most of those occasions Robert was with Victoria. If Victoria was not there she would ask Robert where Victoria was, and he would tell Ms Pompilio why she was absent.
3. She would go to Robert's house two or three times a year. Every time she went there, Victoria was there and she was living there with him as a couple.
4. Ms Pompilio recalled going to Robert and Victoria's property in Karrinyup and having meals prepared by Victoria. At the end of the meals, Victoria would do the dishes. Victoria declined Ms Pompilio's offers of help, saying that she (Ms Pompilio) was a guest in their house and to sit down.
5. From her observations, it was clear that Victoria was living at the house. Every time she went to Robert's house, Victoria was there. She went to the house maybe two or three times a year.[193]
6. Robert and Victoria were invited as a couple to Ms Pompilio's wedding in 2004. They attended the service and were seated with her grandparents at the reception.
7. Ms Pomilio invited Robert and Victoria to her 30th birthday party, which I infer was in 2009. They attended, as well as her cousins Rose‑Marie and Stephanie.
8. She observed at family functions that Victoria had a very good relationship with Robert's parents. Those functions were held while her grandmother was alive and on a few occasions at her place.
9. Victoria would visit Ms Pompilio's grandmother at her grandmother's house.[194]
10. Ms Pompilio moved to Melbourne in 2014 and lived there for four years, returning to Perth approximately four months before Robert's death. She would speak to Victoria on the landline at Dwyer Street from time to time.
11. Prior to moving to Melbourne, Robert would invite Ms Pompilio to dinner with Victoria and him, but she never attended.
12. Ms Pompilio was cross-examined on the basis that there was bad blood between her and Alison, Rose-Marie and Stephanie, which she denied. Her evidence was that 'all' the cousins became distant because of something going on with their parents.
13. It was suggested to her that there was a major falling out in 2018 or 2019 in relation to a property in Charles Street. Ms Pompilio maintained that she had nothing to do with the unit, which I understood to be the property in question. Her evidence was that she would say hello to her cousins if she saw them, but because 'the family is all divided', she had not spoken with Alison or Rose-Marie since Robert died. Stephanie had attended Ms Pompilio's house in Westminster and she had attended Stephanie's house since Robert's death.[195] She could not remember her last contact with Rose-Marie.[196]
14. Ms Pompilio referred in cross-examination to having received a nasty email from Alison after Ms Pompilio had spoken to Alison's lawyer.[197] The lawyer had called her out of the blue and asked her some questions. Ms Pompilio said that she answered them honestly, and then she received an email from Alison the next day.[198]
15. She recalled photographs of Robert and Victoria being taken at family functions. She had some photographs of Robert at family functions.[199] She had photographs of Robert and Victoria at her wedding.[200]
16. Ms Pompilio's evidence in cross-examination was that there was always tension between Robert and his daughters. Asked what sort of tension, Ms Pompilio said that she thought they did not like Robert being with Victoria.[201]
17. Ms Pompilio was an honest and reliable witness who gave evidence in a responsive and frank manner. She appeared to have a good recollection of events. I accept her evidence.

1. Mr Tupou is a real estate agent with whom Robert dealt from about 2015 until Robert's death. Mr Tupou managed two commercial properties Robert owned in Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn during that time.
2. He came to know Victoria though management of a property in Subiaco from which Sussan's previously traded. He met Victoria before he met Robert. He may have met Victoria in 2014.
3. Victoria did not mention anything about Robert when he first met her. Victoria later mentioned to him that he knew 'her' Robert.[202]
4. He and Robert would speak at least weekly, and quite often more frequently. They would have lunch together approximately monthly. He considered Robert to be a good friend.
5. Mr Tupou's evidence was that Robert told him that he and Victoria were living together. Robert referred to Victoria as his 'better half' and that he was lucky to have Victoria as his 'missus'. He said that Robert would mention Victoria to him quite often in their lunch meetings.
6. He met Robert and Victoria at Robert's property in Karrinyup. He went to the house a couple of times.
7. Based on his discussions with Robert and Victoria Mr Tupou formed the view that they were living together for the approximately three years he knew them.
8. Approximately four months before Robert's death Mr Tupou asked Robert whether the commercial properties would go to his daughters. Robert told him that he did not think so because Victoria had done so much for him and he had very little to do with any of his daughters. Robert did not tell him the names of his children.
9. During the same conversation, Mr Tupou asked Robert whether he had a will and Robert said that he did not, and was thinking of having one prepared. Robert said that he had a friend who was a lawyer and was thinking of having that lawyer prepare a will for him. Robert did not identify the lawyer or say what he proposed the will would say.
10. He last spoke to Robert within ten days of his death.
11. Mr Tupou was a responsive and open witness, who gave evidence candidly. His evidence was not impacted by cross-examination, which was brief.
12. I accept his evidence.

1. Mr Palermo is a chartered accountant. He is a director of Palermo Group Pty Ltd, which carries on business under the name Palermo Chartered Accountants.
2. Mr Palermo's late father was also known as John Palermo. Mr Palermo was employed in his late father's practice from mid-1999 to 2006. His evidence was as follows.
3. In mid-2006 Mr Palermo and his business partner took over a portion of his father's practice. From August 2006, Palermo Group, which has carried on business under the name Palermo Chartered Accountants since that time, assumed full responsibility for the tax and business services practice.[203]
4. Mr Palermo deposed[204] that he met Robert during 2005 when he first became a client of the firm. He would meet Robert to discuss his accounting requirements. His office would prepare businesses activity statements and income tax returns for Robert.
5. Robert was not a client of the practice prior to 2005. Robert was never a client that Mr Palermo's father had dealt with directly.
6. Mr Palermo's father was not involved in the preparation of Robert's tax affairs, with the exception of a casual hello if they passed each other in reception, which was commonplace with any client waiting in reception.
7. Mr Palermo's recollection was that he would receive required information from Robert and delegate the preparation of the documents to his staff. One of the staff would work on the return, a manager would review it and then a partner would review the manager's work. The partner undertaking the review would be Mr Palermo or his business partner.
8. Mr Palermo would see Robert if he delivered documents to the firm. Quite often Robert would have his partner Victoria deliver the documents to Mr Palermo's office. If Mr Palermo was in and available he would speak to Victoria when she did so.
9. His recollection was that Victoria would deliver documents as often as Robert would do so.
10. Shortly after the practice commenced doing Robert's tax work it also commenced doing Victoria's tax work. His records indicate that his practice prepared returns for the 2005 to 2012 financial years.
11. Mr Palermo was the only accountant at the firm who dealt with Robert. From time to time in the earlier period that Robert was a client of the practice Mr Palermo would call into Robert's muffler repair and installation business in Scarborough Beach Road, Mt Hawthorn to collect Robert's tax documents. That was convenient as it was close to his office.
12. He did not do so because they were friends. He agreed that it was good public relations to do so.[205]
13. His evidence was that when the practice prepared a tax return, the person doing so would go through a check-list, which included discussion about declaration in relation to a spouse's income. Mr Palermo described it as a common question.
14. He said that every time a return is prepared for a given year, his practice would clarify with the client what the spouse's income is, because it had to be disclosed in the client's tax return. While Mr Palermo conceded that a reference could be made to a spouse or de facto partner in error, the error would be flushed out when asking about the spouse's income, since that would have to be provided in order to complete the return.[206]
15. Mr Palermo had no recollection of meeting Robert in or about June 2008 at a café in Oxford Street Leederville, where it was said that he had witnessed Robert signing a will. As far as he knew, he did not know Joanne Smith and had never met her.
16. Mr Palermo's recollection was that he had never met and did not know Chum Taylor. He was not cross-examined on that point.
17. Mr Palermo could not recall meeting Robert for coffee and his evidence was that he never 'hung out' with him. He accepted that it was conceivable that he could have had a coffee with Robert in Oxford Street, Leederville, but could not recall doing so.
18. Mr Palermo's practice did not act for Robert in relation to tax affairs for the financial years ending 30 June 2013 to 30 June 2015. Mr Palermo said that was due to a falling out between them. He said that Robert was quite assertive with his language to Victoria, in front of the practice's receptionist. Robert used a lot of profanity, which was directed towards Victoria, and Mr Palermo took exception to that. He took Robert into a meeting room and told him that they would no longer act for him. Mr Palermo recalled saying words to the effect that 'You can't speak to people, especially women in that way.'
19. Mr Palermo's father died in March 2015.
20. Mr Palermo's practice prepared Robert's tax returns for the years ended 30 June 2016 and 2017. In accordance with Robert's instructions both returns disclosed that Robert was at the time in a de facto relationship with Victoria. Robert signed both returns before they were lodged with the Australian Taxation Office.
21. Mr Palermo's practice did so after Robert came to see him. His evidence was that Robert showed up in reception and said that he wanted them to continue doing his work because he liked the way they operated. Mr Palermo said under no circumstances would he do that, given what had transpired previously. Robert asked under what circumstances would Mr Palermo do his work and Mr Palermo told him that Robert would have to act with respect towards everyone. There would be no profanity. Mr Palermo told Robert he would drop off his documentation, they would prepare his returns and if Mr Palermo heard anything otherwise, then we would dispense with him again.
22. Mr Palermo said Robert behaved himself after that.
23. He said that as far as he was aware and his office was aware Victoria was Robert's spouse. During the time he acted as Robert's accountant he was of the view that Robert and Victoria were living in a de facto relationship. They gave the outward appearance of being a couple in a relationship to him.
24. He said that they did not discuss personal family matters in all the time he was Robert's accountant.
25. His firm's practice was to refer a client who requested a will or other estate matter to a lawyer fluent in those matters.
26. Mr Palermo's evidence in chief was that Victoria contacted him to advise that Robert had died, and that he had not heard from other members of the family to advise about that.
27. In cross-examination, Mr Palermo was asked whether he had witnessed a mortgage granted by Robert to National Australia Bank Limited dated 5 March 2004. He did not recall doing so. Having been shown the document,[207] Mr Palermo accepted that bore his signature and that he must have met Robert at least as at that date.[208]
28. He could not shed any more light on the document. Mr Palermo conceded that it was possible, but unlikely, that he witnessed other documents for Robert, but his evidence was clear that he did not have a discussion with Robert about the preparation of a will. Mr Palermo gave the following evidence in cross-examination:[209]

But in the same way as you say he may have popped in to have a mortgage signed, may he have popped in to have you witness a will?‑‑‑Possibly.

Possibly?---Possibly, but I don't - I don't recall that and there was never a conversation about preparation of a will.

No. But it's not inconceivable that he may have - in the same way that he got you to witness a mortgage, he may have gotten you to witness a will. Correct?---Sure. Sure.

1. It would not, of course, have been sufficient for Robert to attend Mr Palermo's office to have Mr Palermo witness the will. In order for a will to have been validly executed as pleaded by Alison, Robert would have had to attended Mr Palermo's office with 'Chum' Taylor. It was not put to Mr Palermo that ever or might have occurred.
2. Mr Palermo's affidavit did not address a meeting between him and Alison, Rose-Marie and Stephanie, nor how that meeting came about. I infer that was because the meeting was not pleaded, and none of the sisters referred to it in their affidavits before 7 March 2024.
3. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Palermo had met or knew of any of Alison, Rose-Marie or Stephanie while Robert was alive. His evidence was that he was not familiar with the three daughters.[210]
4. Mr Palermo was cross-examined about a telephone call Stephanie made to him on about 27 December 2018, in which it was suggested that Mr Palermo had told her that he wished to see all three sisters in his office. He said that he did not believe that was the case, but that he did not recall it.[211]
5. It was put to Mr Palermo that he had told Stephanie that he and Robert were very close, in response to which he said that he would not have said that.[212]
6. Mr Palermo denied as absolutely untrue the suggestion that he had told Stephanie that he knew exactly what her father's wishes were, and that he needed to see them before he went away on holidays.[213]
7. Asked why he had agreed to see the sisters over the holiday period, Mr Palermo said they were the daughters of a client who had passed away, and often he would accommodate a request for a meeting in those circumstances because there was grief and emotion involved. There was no other reason for meeting them.[214]
8. Mr Palermo denied having told the three sisters that he used to meet Robert for coffee every Thursday, and said that he had never done so.[215]
9. He denied absolutely the suggestion that he said to them that he knew that Robert's wishes were that all his assets and money would be left to his daughters equally. He said that it would not have been a topic he would have discussed because he did not have any knowledge of Robert's intentions.[216]
10. Mr Palermo agreed that he met the three sisters at his office on short notice during the Christmas period, and that they were the only persons there. He agreed he had to open his office to see them, and that he saw them in his boardroom.[217]
11. His recollection was that the meeting took less than an hour. He did not keep notes of the meeting. He was prepared to come to the office to meet with them because their father had died.[218]
12. Mr Palermo gave coherent and cogent evidence as to why he would not have told Robert's daughters of the contents of his will, had one existed.[219] He said that, had he been asked about a will, he would have given the same response he gives everyone in that situation, which was that he would check the database when the office came back and see if they were holding any information. Mr Palermo's evidence was that the three sisters were not clients of his and Robert's estate. He said that there was confidentiality at play until an executor or the Public Trustee is appointed (I infer in relation to the estate).
13. Mr Palermo was cross-examined about whether he was involved in a shopping centre syndicate or whether he was involved in promoting a shopping centre. His evidence was that his firm did not promote investments at all, and that he was not involved in shopping centre syndicates.[220]
14. Mr Palermo was also cross-examined as to whether Alison wanted to ask whether he knew anything about her father's interest in a shopping centre syndicate, and said that he did not recall that at all.[221]
15. There was no evidence adduced to suggest, even faintly, that Robert, Mr Palermo or Palermo Group Pty Ltd had any involvement or investment in shopping centres.
16. Mr Palermo was an impressive witness. His evidence in cross‑examination was forthright. He readily made concessions where appropriate. As might be expected of a witness being asked to relate events almost 20 years after they were said to have occurred, he acknowledged the possibility that his recollection might be mistaken, whether as to he might have had a coffee with Robert or witnessed a document at Robert's request.
17. Those are, however, insignificant matters, which it is entirely understandable that a person might forget. They are to be contrasted with being asked to witness a will at a table outside a café in Oxford Street, Leederville together with a man (Chum Taylor) he had never met. That might be thought to be a circumstance so out of the ordinary that, even after 20 years, a person might retain some recollection of it.
18. I do not take Mr Palermo's evidence that he has no recollection of meeting Robert during June 2008 where he purportedly witnessed Robert signing a will as meaning, to his understanding, that might have occurred. Rather, I consider his evidence a denial that it would have occurred.
19. There is a conflict between Mr Palermo and the three sisters as to what occurred at the meeting on 3 January 2019, which I address below.

1. Mr Taylor did not give evidence at the trial. It was common ground that he was suffering from dementia and unfit to give evidence.
2. There was no evidence as to when Mr Taylor became incapable of giving evidence. I infer that Mr Taylor was suffering from dementia as at October 2023, because of the obvious significance of his evidence in respect of the claim that Robert made the 2008 will and no statement or affidavit from him was tendered.
3. An article from the West Australian Newspaper dated 11 May 2017 titled 'Champ Chum burnt up the old speedway track' was tendered by counsel for Victoria without objection.[222] The article contained a photograph of three men directly beneath the author's byline and the date of the article.
4. The opening paragraphs of the article are as follows:

Edwin Vernon Taylor has a twinkle in his eye as he stands at the track he tore around as a young man.

Taylor, 90, known as 'Chum', was a speedway motorcycle rider who rode every summer at Claremont Speedway for 27 years.

The Perth star launched his career at the historic Claremont venue, racing his first dirt track speedway race in 1948.

'I raced every summer here - I had the biggest handicap,' he said. 'I broke my neck in a crash here when I was 25 and got out of the plaster to get married.'

1. In view of the importance I have placed on statements in the article in assessing the evidence of Ms Smith and Mr Sussa, and in case the matter goes further, my reasons for accepting the statements in the first two paragraphs as evidence of Mr Taylor's real or legal name are as follows.
2. Both Ms Smith and Mr Sussa gave evidence that they knew 'Chum' Taylor. Both identified the same man in the photograph as 'Chum' Taylor.
3. Section 79C(5)(a) of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) provides that a court may draw any reasonable inference from the form of contents of a document in which a statement is contained or from any other circumstances for the purpose of deciding whether a statement is admissible as evidence.
4. I infer from the fourth paragraph of the article that Mr Taylor was interviewed by its author, since that paragraph purports to be a direct quote, and that Mr Taylor told the author of the article that his name was Edwin Vernon Taylor, that he was 90 years old at the time he was interviewed and that he was known as 'Chum' in the course of that interview, in addition to the information set out in the fourth paragraph.
5. Section 79C(1) provides:

Subject to subsection (2), in any proceedings where direct oral evidence of a fact or opinion would be admissible, any statement in a document and tending to establish the fact or opinion shall, on production of the document, be admissible as evidence of that fact or opinion if the statement -

(a) was made by a qualified person; or

(b) directly or indirectly reproduces or is derived from one or other or both of the following -

(i) information in one or more statements, each made by a qualified person;

(ii) information from one or more devices designed for, and used for the purpose of, recording, measuring, counting or identifying information, not being information based on a statement made by any person.

1. The newspaper article is a document.[223] Direct oral evidence of Mr Taylor's name and nickname would have been admissible if given by Mr Taylor.
2. Section 79C(2) requires that the qualified person who made a statement in a document sought to be relied upon be called as a witness, subject to the exceptions specified in the subsection. One of the exceptions is s79C(2)(b), which provides that a qualified person need not be called where that person is 'unfit by reason of his bodily or mental condition to attend or give evidence as a witness'.
3. As Mr Taylor was unfit to give evidence due to his bodily or mental condition, the statements in the article as to his name and nickname are admissible pursuant to s 79C(1).
4. I accordingly find that 'Chum' Taylor's real or legal name was Edwin Vernon Taylor, that it was not Charles Taylor and that he told the reporter from the 'West Australian' newspaper his real name when asked. Further, I infer from those facts that Mr Taylor would not have told people, when asked what was his real or legal name, that his name was Charles Taylor.
5. I further infer, there being no evidence to the contrary, that Mr Taylor would not have signed a document intended to have legal effect which incorrectly stated his name to be 'Charles Taylor'.

1. Lia is Victoria's daughter. She did not give evidence in the proceedings.
2. I accept that Lia would have been able to give evidence of her relationship with Stephanie, Robert's relationship with her mother Victoria and the allegations that Lia threatened the staff at Mareena Purslowe funerals in some way.
3. Alison did not submit that a Jones v Dunkel[224] inference should be drawn from Lia's failure to give evidence. I would not draw such an inference in this case in any event, for two reasons.
4. First, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Robert and Victoria lived in a de facto relationship for many years, until his death. In the circumstances, it was unnecessary for Victoria to call her daughter to give evidence as to an issue in respect of which there was more than sufficient evidence.
5. The second reason is that the allegations that Lia and Mr Varelis threatened or otherwise acted improperly towards the staff at Mareena Purslowe did not rise higher than unsubstantiated hearsay and assertion.
6. Each of Alison, Stephanie and Rose-Marie referred to threatening emails having been sent to Mareena Purslowe staff. Those documents were not adduced in evidence. Nor was there anything other than, at best, hearsay of any threats made to Mareena Purslowe's staff.
7. There having been no admissible evidence of the alleged conduct, there was no forensic reason for Victoria to adduce evidence regarding it.
8. I therefore do not draw any conclusions from Lia's absence from the trial.

1. Alison's evidence in chief comprised her affidavit sworn 7 March 2024.[225]
2. Her evidence is that Robert and her mother Kerry separated in approximately 1995 and divorced on 6 May 1998. Alison was approximately 26 years old when her parents divorced. Stephanie is 15 years younger than Alison, and used to stay with Robert on weekends and school holidays until she turned 17 in 2004.
3. Alison's evidence was that to the best of her knowledge Robert continued living by himself at Dwyer Street after her parents separated. She said that Robert often said to her that no woman or family would live at Karrinyup. Her evidence was that after her parents separated his running joke with his mates in front of her was 'Why do men get married? As they do not want to go through life being happy'.
4. Alison's evidence was that Robert retired at the end of 2009.
5. She accepted that she was not involved daily in his life, and not on a weekly basis, although she saw Robert every Saturday.
6. Her evidence was that on every occasion that she went to Dwyer Street she did not have reason to believe that anyone else lived there. She said that she probably saw her father once a month at Dwyer Street and rarely saw Victoria there when she visited.
7. Alison attended Christmas day celebrations at Dwyer Street each year, except for 2018. Alison did not volunteer evidence as to whether she saw Victoria there.
8. Regarding her relationship with Victoria, Alison deposed:

I first met Victoria Varelis around 2004 as she attended my Uncle Carl's funeral. She did not drive in the funeral car with my family and I. Vicky attended my Nonno Joe's funeral in April 2005 but was not in the funeral car for this funeral either.

Dad never introduced her to my sisters and me as his partner. Dad only used to refer to Victoria to me and my family as being the house cleaner. I know he was abrupt with words but that is what he would say in front of me.

I did not see Vicky on Christmas Eve in 2018, at her place of work or anywhere else. I also did not give her any Christmas gift on this occasion nor a candle.

1. Although initially evasive,[226] in cross-examination Alison's evidence was that she would go to Dwyer Street approximately eight or ten times a year. Alison disagreed with the proposition that she had no way of knowing whether Victoria was living there and or the kind of relationship Robert had with Victoria, her view being based on what Robert had told her and that she knew Victoria lived between Padbury and Mount Hawthorn.
2. Alison did not provide any basis for the statement that she knew Victoria lived in Mount Hawthorn or Padbury.
3. Alison's evidence as to what she knew of Victoria living at Dwyer Street was as follows:[227]

When you say:

On every occasion I went to my dad's house -

paragraph 70:

I never had reason to believe that anyone else lived there?---Yes.

What led you to say that?---Because, like I said before, that was his stance on things. He wouldn't let anyone live there. I don't know if he was afraid, that he didn't want to pay out another woman or what, but that's - that was always his remark to us.

So that comment that you make or that evidence you give is based on what he told you, not what you saw?---What I saw and what he told me.

What did you see?---I saw that he lived alone.

How do you see that?---When I go to my father's house, I see that he lives alone.

Well, perhaps Victoria was at work at that time?---Well, it was all different times. As I said, I mean, I believed that Victoria was living between Mount Hawthorn and Padbury with her son.

That's what you assumed, isn't it?---Well, I know she didn't live at Karrinyup.

Well, you don't know that because you were only there maybe once a month?---Well, I did see Dad a lot, so.

At Karrinyup, you were only there at most once a month?---Yes, but I also saw Dad a lot. He used to come to my shop a lot.

You weren't there in the middle of the night, or late at night, were you?---No, I was not. Stephanie was. Steve Comely, many people were, but not me, not at that time.

And you weren't there first thing in the morning, 8 o'clock in the morning?---No. No, I wasn't.

You did see her there sometimes when you went there, though, didn't you, you've said?---Yes. Yes.

And when you were there, she wasn't scrubbing floors or cleaning the kitchen, was she?---No, well, as I said, obviously Vicky was working, etcetera, but I know the (indistinct) thing, I know I had a conversation with Vicky at Sussan's and I knew she was going to Dad's.

She's a hospitable woman, isn't she?---As I said, I didn't have a bad relationship with her.

She's a hospitable woman in a home. She loves to make food and put on things for people who visit, doesn't she?---Dad was the one that would put food out if we turned up.

She is a hospitable woman, isn't she?---I can't give you any information on that.

If you say no, you can say no, but I don't want to hear about your dad?‑‑‑Sorry. Okay. Well, I wouldn't say hospitable. I said she's a nice person. But if we went to Dad's, Dad put the food out.

1. Asked in re-examination what she had observed that caused her to form the view that Victoria did not live at Dwyer Street, her evidence was that Robert had not progressed work on the house and there 'were no feminine touches to it'.[228] Alison's evidence in re-examination was to the effect that she was more likely to see Robert on a Monday at Dwyer Street because she did not open her clinic on Mondays, and she would see him late in the mornings or about 1 o'clock.[229] Victoria would most likely have been at work on those occasions.
2. Alison disagreed that Victoria was the conduit for communication between Alison and Robert from time to time. Her evidence was that she would pop in to see Victoria from time to time. Asked why she would do so, Alison said it was on the way to the post office. Asked how she knew Victoria, Alison's evidence was that she had met Victoria at her uncle's funeral in September 2004. Asked again why she would pop in to see Victoria, Alison said that she met Victoria through her father. She agreed Robert had introduced them, and that she met Victoria through Robert from time to time.
3. Alison's evidence was that she would pop in to see Victoria maybe four times a year over 2012 to 2017, if she was going to the post office. She said that she would not ask Victoria to pass things on to her father, although she conceded she had done so once, when her maternal grandmother had died.
4. Alison was present in court throughout the presentation of Victoria's case. She had considered the documents discovered by Victoria, apparently in detail. Despite that, Alison continued to dispute that Victoria lived at Dwyer Street. Asked why, Alison said that her father 'had always said to our family that no one would ever replace us in our family home - that he would never move a family in or a female.'
5. Alison attended the meeting with Carmel Markham of Mareena Purslowe Funerals on 2 January 2019, but did not depose to having done so nor as to what occurred in the meeting, a matter to which I return below.
6. Her evidence is that she organised Robert's funeral together with her mother Kerry and two sisters. On her evidence, Victoria did not have any involvement with any of the arrangements and did not have any input into any decisions that we made.
7. Alison's evidence was that her mother, her sister and she 'decided on the music, the flowers, the pictures, the catering, the drinks, the personalised stationery and all decisions regarding' Robert's funeral.
8. Alison remembered seeing Victoria at Robert's funeral and that 'she turned up without bringing a plate of food for the wake'. Her evidence was that she 'only ever considered her to be a guest who was paying her respects' unlike Alison's sisters and her friends.
9. The uncontradicted evidence is that Victoria was driven to the funeral with Robert's mother. There was no suggestion that the sisters were in that car. Alison did not advance any explanation as to why, having arranged the funeral with her mother and sisters, Victoria was with Robert's mother in that car and they were not.
10. A video prepared by Robert's nephew Biagio was played at the funeral service. The view included several photographs of Robert and Victoria together, in one case with friends.
11. Alison was an unsatisfactory witness. She was evasive and argumentative. She presented hearsay as information she knew of her knowledge. Her evidence regarding documents inconsistent with her case often unconvincing or argumentative.
12. There were a large number of difficulties with Alison's evidence.
13. There was a note in Alison's handwriting addressed to 'Dad Vick' regarding some soup she had made.[230] Asked whether she addressed the note to Robert and Victoria because she knew they were living together, Alison denied having done so. Her evidence was that she gave the soup to them because she knew Victoria was not cooking for Robert. Alison avoided answering the question why Alison addressed the note to Victoria.[231]
14. Alison agreed the note was an occasion she had dropped something by to both Robert and Victoria. She did so, she said, because Victoria would have told her that she was going to Robert's house.[232]
15. Alison claimed that Victoria had told her that Victoria did not like cooking. That was not put to Victoria in cross-examination, and was not mentioned in Alison's evidence before she volunteered it in cross-examination.
16. At 8.34 pm on 28 April 2015, Alison sent a text message to Victoria[233] in the following terms:

Vic my mums mum passed away tonight after a hear attack a week ago - didn't recover - we were all at the hospital tonight - too upset to talk tonight - that I should let you and dad know xo

Ali, my thoughts are with you and mom. And Rose-Marie.

1. Asked whether she regarded Victoria was her father's partner, Alison said Victoria was a lady friend of her father, but that she would not call it a committed relationship. Alison disagreed that she had written in her text that she thought Victoria should know of her grandmother's death because Victoria was part of her father's family. She explained that she had texted Victoria because her father 'didn't do text messaging' and that she did not call her father that night because she was not ringing anybody. Alison said that was why she had sent the text.
2. Although the text was sent at 8.34 pm, Alison denied that she had sent it expecting that Victoria would be with her father.[234]
3. Alison was asked about a St John of God patient admission form, completed in Robert's handwriting, dated 2 May 2016.[235] Robert identified Victoria in the form as his partner, and gave her residential address as 11 Dwyer Street. Asked how she understood that reference, given the position she had adopted regarding their relationship, Alison stated that her position remained as before, adding that she knew her father did not want to stay in hospital and 'you have to have someone available to look after you to be sent home'.[236]
4. As there was no suggestion that Alison attended the hospital, how Alison claimed to know that was not explained.
5. Shown the St John of God hospital progress notes for 2017,[237] Alison avoided the question that she knew the person referred to as 'wife' in those notes to be Victoria, and claimed that Victoria had told her that Robert was calling out Alison's mother's name, Kerry, at the hospital.
6. That was not mentioned in Alison's evidence in chief. It was not put to Victoria in cross-examination.
7. I note, however, that implicit in Alison's answer was a recognition that Victoria was at the hospital with Robert.
8. Alison acknowledged that the description of the discharge plan in the St John of God progress notes was consistent with the Dwyer Street house.[238] Asked whether the entry that to the effect that the patient lived with a partner who has taken several weeks off work to assist him could only refer to Victoria, Alison said that she did not know.[239]
9. Asked who else it could have been, Alison named two women, and went on to say that she had witnessed Robert with multiple women. Asked whether Robert was seeing anyone else as at the date of his admission to St John of God Hospital, Alison named a woman.[240]
10. Asked why that person was called to give evidence, Alison said that 'she was supposed to, but she has been - she actually had a domestic violence situation and she's not allowed to participate'.[241] She did not elaborate on who was not allowing that person to participate. She was not re-examined on the point.
11. Asked whether she was saying that Robert was seeing someone else, Alison stated that she knew two other women whom she knew of as fact that Robert had met at her clinic. Robert did not tell her that he was having sex with either of them.[242] Asked what Robert was doing with those other women, Alison said 'coming into [her] clinic'. She said that Robert had met one in 2009 in her clinic and the other in about 2014. Alison knew their names.[243]
12. In re-examination, it became clear that Alison had seen no more than Robert taking one of the women to lunch.
13. The first woman would go and have lunch with her father in Subiaco. Sometimes Alison would go with them. It was this woman who Alison said could not give evidence because she had 'been at the hands of a domestic violence situation with someone who broke into her home'.
14. Asked why the second woman was not giving evidence, Alison's evidence was that she did not approach her to do so.[244]
15. None of that evidence was mentioned by Alison in any affidavit filed in the proceedings. Victoria was not asked whether she knew of either woman in cross-examination.
16. Alison asserted that Robert was a womaniser all of his life and she witnessed him with different women.[245] Other than the two women who she mentioned, however, she did not identify those women, or when she had seen them, or in what each woman and her father were engaged when she saw them.
17. Alison was asked in cross-examination what her case was regarding the relationship between Victoria and Robert.[246] She said that she would not say that it wasn't a relationship, but she did not consider it a marriage-like relationship. She said that she would not class it as a long-lasting committed relationship of a marriage status.[247] She said that Robert did not commit as a settling down to a one woman situation.[248]
18. Asked whether there was a relationship of some sort, Alison said that Victoria was a friend of Robert.[249] She accepted that the relationship between Robert and Victoria persisted between 2004 and his death, although she said so only in terms that Victoria knew her father.[250]
19. Asked whether Victoria was Robert's cleaner, in the sense of a person who came in to clean the house and then went away, Alison said that was how they met.[251] Asked if that was the only basis he spoke to Alison about his relationship with Robert, that of a cleaner, Alison's evidence in cross-examination was that was not the only basis. She accepted that was contrary to a statement she had made in an affidavit prior to trial but reiterated that he had said that a lot. She accepted that Victoria was not just a cleaner.[252]
20. Asked why she had failed to state that she accepted that there had been a relationship between Robert and Victoria, but that she viewed as casual and that she believes her father had seen other women, Alison said that it was probably the lawyers, as they were the ones who had been asking her the questions.[253]
21. Asked what she said their relationship entailed, Alison's evidence was:[254]

As I said, Vicky was a friend of Dad's. Obviously sometimes tumultuous. They didn't have a consistent relationship. It was on and off.

How do you know that? How do you know that?---Because Dad told me. I had coffee every Saturday with him in Leederville. So, yes.

That's it?---Yes. She was a female friend of my father's.

1. Alison then confirmed that her evidence was that Victoria and Robert never lived in a relationship that came anything close to that of a de facto relationship or living together as husband and wife.[255]
2. Alison was then shown her affidavit sworn 1 August 2019,[256] in which she had stated:

From my conversations with friends, acquaintances and family members, I believe Robert's de facto relationship with the plaintiff ceased prior to Robert's death.

1. Alison accepted that she was a very careful person as to what she signed before she read it.[257] Cross-examined as to why she had sworn that she believed that Robert's de facto relationship with Victoria had ceased prior to his death, Alison said that she would not have used the term 'de facto'.[258] She also stated, in effect, that the affidavit had been written a long time ago, that lawyers had obviously written it and she could not answer how the word 'de facto' same to be in her affidavit. Pressed on which version of her evidence should be believed, Alison's stated that her evidence of 1 August 2019 'was right early on, when I didn't even understand the terms until much later.'[259]
2. Asked to when to state that Victoria and Robert's relationship, whatever it may have been, had ended, Alison said that she guessed it was in 2010.[260] Pressed as to why she picked that date, she said that was the perception she had from the way Robert spoke about Victoria. She then said that the way Robert spoke about Victoria was a lot worse from when he retired, which she again said was in 2009.[261]
3. On 17 June 2011 Alison sent an email to Ernest Grady,[262] in which she said:

Hi, Ernest. How are you going? I met you a while back, and Vicky Varelis is my father's partner.

1. Alison explained the reference to Victoria as her father's partner as was how you would write a polite email.[263] She claimed that it was an overreach to use the word 'partner', but she would not use the words 'lady friend' or 'girlfriend' in a polite email.[264]
2. Alison was evasive as to why she had used the word 'partner' in referring to Victoria. Alison said that Victoria was ' a lady friend' and a 'female friend' of Robert, but she used the word 'partner' in her email. She eventually accepted that she believed that Victoria was Robert's partner in 2011, although she seemed to qualify her acceptance of that proposition by saying that Victoria 'was seeing Dad'.[265] She then denied that the term 'partner' meant something more than just 'seeing Dad'.[266]
3. It having been pointed out that Alison had not referred to her own knowledge when she deposed in August 2019 that Robert and Victoria's de facto relationship had ceased prior to his death, Alison said, in effect, that her statement was based on what she had witnessed, what she saw and what her family saw.
4. Other than Alison, no witness gave evidence to the effect that Robert and Victoria's relationship ceased prior to his death. Each witness called in support of Alison's case gave evidence to the effect that Robert had not ever been in a relationship after he and Kerry separated.
5. Alison was cross-examined as to whether she had sent statutory declarations and affidavits which she was going to swear to her sisters so they could prepare their own affidavits and statutory declarations from what she had said. She denied having done so. She further denied having sent a statutory declaration to her sisters to enable them to prepare their own declarations.[267]
6. Confronted with her affidavit sworn 3 March 2023, in which she stated that she had sent a copy of her unsigned statutory declaration to her sisters and mother 'to use as an example of the topics to be covered' in their statutory declarations, Alison gave unsatisfactory evidence as to why she denied having done so, claiming she had 'probably [gotten mixed up] when [counsel was] saying affidavits', and that she had not heard counsel use the word 'unsigned'.[268]
7. Alison also accepted in cross-examination that she did not think it fair that Victoria receive anything from Robert's estate.[269] She identified her reasons for saying so as being that she knew what her father had left her and her sisters and that she knew what his wishes were.[270]
8. Regarding the issue of Robert's death certificate, Alison's evidence was that Stephanie forwarded her an email on 14 January 2019 from Mrs Markham, to which was attached a copy of a document titled 'Death Registration Details - Robert', which identified Victoria as Robert's de facto partner at the time of his death.
9. Alison claimed that Stephanie was provided with a copy of the death certificate on 14 January 2019. Neither Alison nor Stephanie gave evidence as to how that is said to have occurred. I find that did not occur on 14 January 2019, as Mrs Markham was not at the Mareena Purslowe offices that day, and Lia had requested that the copies of the death certificates be certified, which could not occur until Mrs Markham attended the office on 16 January 2019.
10. Alison deposed (without objection):

Later, on 14 January 2019, Stephanie and I spoke to Carmel Markham by telephone. Stephanie and I both said words to the effect that under no circumstances did we permit the Plaintiff's daughter, Lia, to list her mother as de facto nor approve any other content relating to the death certificate. Stephanie was distraught. The telephone call was placed on speaker to ask how the error occurred. Carmel apologised repeatedly for the error. However, did not tell us that there was any process by which to remedy the error.

In or around October 2019, I requested a meeting with Regional Manager Invocare, Daniel McKeig and then Subiaco Manager Mareena Purslowe, Carmel Markham. This was surrounding dads service and the unauthorised contact by persons other than my sister Stephanie, in particular the approval of dad's death certificate. Daniel informed me that he and Carmel had both received multiple communications of complaint from Vicky's brother Peter Varelis, and Vicky for months following dads service, up to 17 June 2019. At this meeting, Daniel showed me communication including on 22 May 2019 and 17 June 2019.

Both Daniel and Carmel informed me that Vicky and her family wanted an apology in writing stating that Vicky was the defacto of my late father and Vicky should have been the FSA (Funeral Service Agreement) holder. At this October 2019 meeting, Carmel said to me in words to the effect that Vicky wanted nothing to do with your father's funeral service or funeral service contract paperwork and account. I said to Carmel yes I know that was the case. Carmel thanked me in a sigh of relief in front of Daniel for agreeing with her. Carmel reinforced she was simply a client of Sussans Subiaco and not a personal friend of Vicky's and had no knowledge of relationship status between Vicky and Dad, as well as never meeting my father prior to his passing.

Daniel not knowing the situation, when Carmel was away on leave, replied to some communication stating something very different to the actual facts as he was not informed at a location level, being only at head office level. Both Daniel and Carmel apologised to me, explaining that they had no knowledge as to any relationship with Vicky and my father.

1. None of those allegations were put to Mrs Markham in cross‑examination. Daniel McKeig was not called to give evidence. Nor were any of the alleged 'multiple allegations of complaint' adduced in evidence.
2. For the reasons addressed below, I do not accept this evidence, although I find that Alison and Stephanie did speak to Mrs Markham on 14 January 2019, and raised with her in the course of that conversation why a copy of Mrs Markham's email had been forwarded to a solicitor.
3. At some point, Alison lodged an incident report with the police 'listing the theft and fraud' carried out by Victoria and her daughter.[271] Asked to identify what the theft and fraud had been, Alison stated that Lia 'was writing emails to Mareena Purslowe, demanding that Vicky was placed as de facto. But she had no authority on the FSA (which I interpret to be the funeral services agreement) or any paperwork'.[272]
4. No email to that effect was produced during the trial. Lia did send an email approving the draft death services registration details and requesting the death certificate, but Stephanie had signed the Application for Permit to Cremate and the funeral services agreement, each stating that Robert had been in a de facto relationship when he died, and Victoria's evidence was that she had told Mrs Markham that she was Robert's de facto at the meeting on 2 January 2019.
5. Asked about a statement she had made in an email to the effect that Alison had made a complaint to the Minister of Police, Alison said that she would have written to the Minister.[273] Asked what the letter had been about, Alison said that Lia 'had gotten police to call Mareena Purslowe demanding the death certificate.'[274] Questioned whether she had actually sent a complaint to the Minister of Police about a reference to a 'de facto' on a death certificate, Alison said it had not been about that. She said that 'we were told by Mareena Purslowe, Kerrie Owen, that Lia had got police to phone her demanding her mother is de facto on a death certificate'.[275]
6. Mrs Markham was not cross-examined as to how Victoria's name came to be present on the draft death register details emailed to Victoria's daughter and Stephanie on 14 January 2019, and which Stephanie forwarded to Alison that day.
7. None of the three sisters referred to any conversation with Kerrie Owen of Mareena Purslowe in their affidavits. Kerrie Owen was not called to give evidence. The letter Alison sent to the Minister was not discovered.[276] Alison said she would look for a copy, but it was not produced.
8. As addressed below, the email correspondence between Mrs Markham and Stephanie on 14 and 15 January 2019 is entirely inconsistent with the allegations made by Alison.
9. Turning to the documents where Robert acknowledged his relationship with Victoria, Alison disputed that Robert would have known what the term 'de facto', as used in his home loan application, meant.[277]
10. Alison also disputed the authenticity of Robert's signature on the copy of his 2017 tax return.[278] She claimed that the document was a scan and did not prove that Robert had signed the return. She denied that the copy of Robert's 2017 tax return could be proven, because it was not an original. In cross-examination, Alison argued that there was no evidence that the document bore Robert's signature,[279] and took the position that she would accept nothing less than the original tax return bearing Robert's original signature as evidence that he had signed it.[280]
11. No suggestion was made to Mr Palermo in cross-examination that the copy tax returns, which were tendered in the course of the trial without objection, were not true copies of documents submitted to the Australian Taxation Office.
12. In cross-examination, Alison gave evidence that she had examined through Robert's bank statements in discovery and found highlighting of 'Vicky owes' an amount of $4,000 and one of $1,500. Based on that, Alison claimed that the bank cheques Victoria had said were gifts to Robert were the payment of debts Victoria had owed to him.[281] Alison then went on to suggest that there were lots of loans that Victoria owed (I presume), before she was cut off by counsel's next question.[282] Alison then stated that she had evidence that the payments were for the repayment of loans. She said that the bank statements which showed that to be so had been discovered.[283]
13. Alison gave evidence for the first time in cross-examination that it was written in Robert's handwriting 'Vicky, pay back', and that Robert used to lend her money, it being written, 'for Vicky to pay back'.[284]
14. A call was then made for the documents to which Alison referred. The documents were not produced, other than the documents identified by Victoria in the course of her evidence.
15. Asked whether, having seen Robert's private health insurance documents listing Victoria as his spouse, Alison had a different view on how her father viewed his relationship with Victoria, Alison said that she did.[285]
16. Alison agreed that she gave a Christmas card addressed to 'Dear Dad & Vick' in 2018. The card stated '[W]ishing you a special Christmas holiday & New Year 2019', and was signed 'Love Ali xxx'.
17. She said that she gave it to Victoria at Sussan's, but denied that she knew that Robert and Victoria were living in a relationship together as at December 2018. She said that they were friends. Asked whether Alison considered them to be a couple, Alison's evidence was that she 'didn't consider them to be a marriage-like couple, and I didn't consider them to be living together.'[286]
18. Her evidence was that she may have given Victoria the Christmas card on Christmas Eve. Asked about her evidence in her affidavit that she did not see Victoria on Christmas Eve 2018, and did not give her any Christmas gift, Alison said that obviously it was not the day before Christmas that she saw Victoria, but that she did give her the card at Sussan's.[287]
19. Alison did not address having given the Christmas card in 2018 to Victoria in her trial affidavit.
20. Alison's evidence in cross-examination was that she did not know the majority of people who posted obituary notices referring to Victoria in 'The West Australian' newspaper.
21. Alison claimed to know for a fact that her grandmother had not arranged the obituary notice published in her name, which referred to Victoria. Pressed on the source of that knowledge, it became clear that her statement was based on something she had been told. Asked to identify who had told her, Alison did not do so.[288] She was not re-examined on the point.
22. Alison claimed that she had reason to doubt Victoria visited her grandmother.[289] She said that she knew that because her uncle Carl had lived with his mother for about 15 years. As already noted, Carl died in 2004. Asked whether Victoria continued to visit her grandmother after Carl's death, Alison claimed to have been told by her grandmother that she did not do so. Asked when she had that conversation or conversations with her grandmother, Alison did not give a direct answer. Asked whether Alison had said that her grandmother was deaf, Alison claimed that you had to scream at her grandmother.[290]
23. Alison accepted in cross-examination that Robert had purchased two cars for Victoria, but then sought to argue that she assumed that Victoria had purchased a car from him, based on one of the bank cheques Victoria had given to Robert.[291]
24. Questioned as to why Victoria was present at the meeting with Mrs Markham on 2 January 2019, Alison's evidence was that Victoria 'was there supporting us and we organised the funeral'. She was adamant that Victoria did not participate in the funeral arrangements.[292]
25. Alison did not depose as to what occurred at the meeting with Mrs Markham in her trial affidavit.
26. Asked whether her sister Stephanie was denied an opportunity to read the forms before she signed them, Alison's evidence was 'she did, but the page was double sided'. Alison claimed that the documents were 'pre-filled' when they were given to Stephanie by Mrs Markham. She said that Mrs Markham had not turned the double sided page over to show Stephanie what was on it, and did not ask a series of questions, as Mrs Markham had said she did.[293]
27. It would be obvious to any reader of the second page of the Application for Permission to Cremate that Stephanie signed that it was not the first page of the document, but I accept that it is possible that a person affected by grief might not have stopped to read the whole of the document before signing it. As addressed below, however, that was not the effect of Stephanie's evidence.
28. Alison's evidence was that 'we (I infer meaning her and her two sisters) only found out yesterday that the page was double sided'. In cross-examination, she gave evidence by reference to Mrs Markham's evidence the day before, for which she had been present throughout.[294]
29. As there is a substantial conflict between the evidence of Mr Palermo and the three sisters as to what occurred between them shortly after Robert's death, I set out Alison's evidence regarding Mr Palermo in full:

On 29 December 2018 after Dad passed, my sisters and I called Dad's former accountant John Palermo together.

John paid his condolences and asked to see us by ourselves and said in words to the effect that he knew exactly what Dad's wishes were. He said it was urgent to see us as he was going on holiday on 4 January 2019, the day of Dad's service.

My sisters and I went to John Palermo's office on Thursday 3 January 2019, the day before Dad's funeral around late morning. It was just John Palermo there as the office was closed over the Christmas holidays.

John spoke to us about how close he and Dad were and that they met every Thursday for coffee. John also said to us that he would like to manage Dad's estate for us and said my sisters and I were left everything in equal shares by my father.

John then went on to say Dad had four properties including Karrinyup in his personal name. However, the meeting got abruptly shut down when I inquired about missing properties such as a shopping centre/shops syndicate.

John replied saying that he had no knowledge of any other properties other than Dwyer Street and 193, 196 and 211 Scarborough Beach Road and started to wrap up the meeting.

I said in words to the effect of 'well hang on John, have you got a copy of Dad's Will? That is why you called us here isn't it?' John said in words to the effect that he would have to check with his staff when they return from Christmas holidays and that they would get back to us. John asked for our phone numbers and wrote them on a whiteboard and escorted us out.

John has never got back to me or my sisters in reference to his office holding a copy of dad's will.

On 14 March 2019, John Hammond did a mortgage search for me and found that dad had mortgaged his 11 Dwyer Street property to obtain $560,000 through NAB. This document was witnessed by dad's accountant John Palermo, on 5 March 2004.

Since dad's passing, I have phoned John Palermo at least 3 or 4 times in reference to his knowledge as to the reason for this sizeable loan as dad never had a mortgage on Karrinyup previously and John was his accountant so he would have the records.

John's response to me was he had no knowledge of the mortgage, and he was not a friend of dad's, he just did his accounting work and did not know dad on a personal level.

I mentioned that John himself had witnessed this mortgage document for dad, to refresh his memory, but John said he didn't remember, and dad may have raised the funds for personal use.

I replied saying my dad would never get a loan of this size for personal use and he didn't buy shares, so it could only be property. He detested loans.

John's response to me again was he has no knowledge and reiterated he was not a personal friend of dads, only a business acquaintance.

1. Cross-examined about her evidence regarding her interactions with John Palermo, Alison denied that they had called Mr Palermo because she and her sisters were looking for a copy of a will. She said that she was 'horrified' that Mr Palermo had given evidence that he had not asked to see them, because that was not true. She could not offer a reason why he would do so.[295]
2. Alison's evidence in cross-examination was that she and her sisters called Mr Palermo because he was a close friend of their father's and they wanted to let him know that Robert had died. She said that, during the phone call between Mr Palermo and the three sisters on 29 December 2018, Mr Palermo told them that he had been extremely close to their father, and that he used to see him every Thursday for coffee. He told them that he needed to see them alone.
3. Alison claimed to be shocked that Mr Palermo did not remember any coffees with her father.[296]
4. Alison claimed Mr Palermo was a close friend of Robert, and that he had admitted it both on the phone and when they saw him at their office. Asked how did she know that Mr Palermo and Robert were close friends, she said that Mr Palermo's cousin, Dean Palermo, had told her so. She claimed that Dean Palermo had told her that he shared an office with Mr Palermo, and had told her that Robert was on the speaker-phone with Mr Palermo all the time.[297]
5. Alison said that Dean Palermo had told her of those things in June 2024.[298] Alison did not otherwise explain, having been told by Dean Palermo in June 2024 that Mr Palermo and Robert were close friends, she or any of her sisters knew that to be the case in December 2018 when they decided to call Mr Palermo to tell him of their father's death.
6. Dean Palermo did not give evidence. There was no mention of what he is said to have had told Alison in her or her sisters' evidence in chief. Mr Palermo was not cross-examined about having had frequent conversations with Robert on speaker-phone, or that Dean Palermo worked in his company's offices.
7. Alison said that Mr Palermo was asked to be a pallbearer. But she could not say who made that request, nor when it occurred, other than it did not occur in the telephone call on 29 December 2018, nor at the meeting on 3 January 2019.[299]
8. Her evidence was at the meeting the day before Robert's funeral at Mr Palermo's office, Mr Palermo told them that he would like to manage Robert's estate, and the sisters were left everything in equal shares by him.
9. None of that, including any request for Mr Palermo to act as pall‑bearer, was put to Mr Palermo in cross-examination. Nor did any other witness suggest that Mr Palermo had been asked to act as a pallbearer.
10. Alison's evidence in cross-examination was that she remembered Robert saying that he was involved with a shopping centre syndicate through John Palermo, and that she was pretty sure that it was Ballajura.[300]
11. Her evidence as to what was said in the meeting with Mr Palermo on 3 January 2019 was as follows:[301]

Well, what did you say? How did you approach that? When you say a property was missing, what did you say to him?---I said exactly that. I said, 'Hang on. What about the shopping centre syndicate that he was part of a unit trust with you?' And he said, 'No, no, nothing. That's it. Your dad had everything in his own names, and he only had the three commercial plus Karrinyup.' And because - I felt like I hit a nerve about - talking about the shopping centre syndicate. He stopped the meeting.

And he chased you out, effectively; that's what you're saying. Or he ushered you out?---Only when I asked about that - the shopping centre syndicate.

...

And you put in that body of evidence to try and paint the impression that Mr Palermo knew something about it and had some involvement in it?---I can't answer that. It was just very odd that he needed to see us urgently and then stopped the meeting.

You believe Mr Palermo has done something or knows something about that property, don't you?---I do not know. We've never found out to this day.

1. There was no admissible evidence that Robert had ever had any interest in a shopping centre syndicate.
2. Alison's evidence regarding Charles Taylor is also of concern. Alison deposed in her affidavit tendered as her evidence in chief as follows:

From opening my clinic in 2005 up to 2018, I went to Oxford Street religiously on Saturdays for coffee. I would sit with Charles (Chum) Taylor and dad for a coffee and a chat. Dad took Chum out every single week.

1. In cross-examination, Alison stated that 'Chum' Taylor's name was Charles, and that his 'real name' was Charles. Told that Mr Taylor's real name was not Charles, Alison said 'then I'm wrong'. She then said that she only knew Mr Taylor as Chum and that was what Robert always called him.
2. The cross-examination continued:[302]

Why did you write here his name is Charles Taylor?---I actually thought that was his, I actually thought it was his name, but we only ever referred to him as Chum.

Where did you get that Charles from?---I'm not sure actually. As I said, I only knew him as Chum. That's all I called him.

And you say he was a famous race cross person -race - - -?---Chum Taylor. Yes.

You assumed his name was Charles because of his nickname, Chum, didn't you?---No. No. As I said, I only knew him as Chum.

I see?---That's the only way we ever referred to him.

And then, if that's the case, why have you written there Charles?---I don't know. I thought that was his, you know, given name. But I never referred to him other than Chum.

It's also pleaded in your defence that it was Charles Chum Taylor who witnessed a will?---Yes. In my defence?

In your written defence in counterclaim?---In the pleadings?

In the counterclaim. Yes?---Yes. I don't know. But I'm just saying we only knew him as Chum - well, myself.

1. Alison did not claim that Joanne Smith had told her Mr Taylor's real name.
2. Alison claimed to have always known that her father had a will, although she did not say how. She accepted that she set about looking for a will on 6 January 2019.[303]
3. In cross-examination, Alison stated that she knew as at 6 January 2019 that Robert had a will because she knew Robert still had the mirror wills that he did with her mother.[304]
4. Alison confirmed in cross-examination that Robert had not said to her that he had made a will, and never told her that he had made a will in 2008.
5. Asked why no claim had been made that Robert had a will when the original defence had been filed, Alison's evidence was that it was not suggested to them by their then solicitor.[305]
6. A file note prepared by Alison's former solicitors dated 20 September 2020 was in evidence,[306] although it appeared to have been forwarded to Rose-Marie and Stephanie on 22 September 2022. The file note recorded that witness statements had been provided to Hammond Legal, the sisters' previous solicitors, which did not provide sufficient evidence of a previous will.
7. On its face, the file note clearly records the steps taken to the proceedings to the date of preparation of the note, and records advice as to what would be required to establish that Robert had had a will and that it had been lost. I note that the advice recorded included advice that there must be evidence that the lost will was properly executed according to law before any claim to that effect could be made.
8. Alison denied in cross-examination that witness statements had been provided to Hammond Legal. She said that the only time statements had been done was in October 2023, when affidavits were drawn up. Slightly later, Alison said that nothing was filed until October 2023.[307]
9. It would be odd for litigation solicitors to fail to correctly draw the distinction between witness statements and affidavits in preparing a file note of the nature of the note in question. I consider that it is likely that Alison was confused about the reference to witness statements rather than affidavits, her references to documents being filed suggesting, in a case where there were no orders made for the filing of witness outlines, that Alison was referring to the preparation of affidavits, not witness statements.
10. Alison made a statutory declaration on 8 August 2022, which she provided to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in support of an application to have the Registrar remove the reference to Victoria as Robert's de facto from his death certificate.
11. In her declaration, Alison provided a copy of an employment declaration form completed by Victoria in August 1992 which showed Victoria as having an address in Carine, and a copy of a computer printout showing Victoria's address as at 10 August 2020 as 110 Matlock Street.
12. A copy of the letter from Sussan dated 8 June 2008 addressed to Victoria at the Dwyer Street address was omitted from the declaration. Moreover, although the recipient of the subpoena had written to the court to the effect that, having checked its payroll records, it could verify that Victoria's address was 11 Dwyer Street as at June 2008, Alison made no mention of that in the declaration.
13. Alison's explanation for those omissions in cross-examination was that there was only one letter sent to Dwyer Street 'that wasn't on the database'. Initially, her evidence was that Sussans had only two addresses on file for Victoria. Alison then claimed that her then solicitor or her staff telephoned Sussans and were told that there were only two addresses. Her evidence was that, when they telephoned, they were told that there was no 'database record' for Karrinyup, and that the 'only database records they had [for Victoria] was Carine and Mount Hawthorn'.[308]
14. Alison then claimed that she 'went by what the subpoena actually said, where it says, prior to Victoria leaving the company, it was 110 Matlock Street' in creating her statutory declaration.[309] By that, I understood Alison to mean that she adopted part of the letter sent to the Court in response to the subpoena which referred to the Matlock Street address as 'Current (prior to Victoria leaving the Company).' The computer printout showed Victoria's employment to have ended on 10 August 2020, the reason being recorded as 'redundancy'.
15. The second omission was the Form 6 Stephanie signed on 2 January 2019, which stated that Robert's marital status was 'defacto'. Questioned about the failure to include that document, Alison claimed that the first time she became aware of it was in November 2023, when the solicitors Forbes Kirby showed it to her and asked whether it was in Stephanie's handwriting.[310]
16. Alison deposed that the document was in her possession, custody or power in the course of swearing her affidavit of discovery on 25 January 2021.[311] Confronted with that, Alison claimed to have forgotten the document.[312]
17. Alison was an unsatisfactory, unreliable and partisan witness. She did not distinguish between what she knew of her own experience and what she had been told by others in giving evidence, so that her evidence must be carefully scrutinised.
18. Her explanations as to why she referred to Victoria as her father's partner in her 2011 email to a third party, the 2015 text message to Victoria regarding her grandmother's death and the note left regarding the soup (minor though that matter might be) were unconvincing in each case.
19. Similarly, Alison's explanation as to why she referred to Victoria as having been in a de facto relationship with Robert in her 2019 affidavit was entirely unconvincing.
20. I find that Alison delivered a Christmas card addressed to Robert and Victoria on Christmas Eve 2018 to Victoria, and that she did so because she considered the two of them to be in a relationship, as she had known them to be for some years.
21. Nor do I accept her explanation from having omitted documents from her statutory declaration dated 8 August 2022. I find that Alison, in making her statutory declaration to be provided to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in support of the application to vary Robert's death certificate, deliberately omitted reference to Victoria's 2008 employment contract with Sussan and the letter Sussan wrote to the court in response to the subpoena issued to it, because both documents showed Victoria's home address as 11 Dwyer Street, a matter inconsistent with the claim that Victoria was not Robert's de facto.
22. In doing so, I reject Alison's explanation as to what she claims to have been told by her then solicitors about the Sussan payroll database on the bases that it was inconsistent with the clear words of the letter and hearsay.
23. I also do not accept that Alison did not recall in preparing that declaration that the Application for Permit to Cremate form that Stephanie had signed on 2 January 2019 referred to Robert as having been in a de facto relationship at the time of his death.
24. In addition, I find that Alison refused to make reasonable concessions regarding the various documents in which Robert acknowledged that he was in a de facto relationship, or acknowledged Victoria as his de facto, including as to the authenticity of the copies of Robert's tax returns.
25. Nor does the basis advanced by Alison for her evidence that Robert was engaged with other women throughout the time he and Victoria were involved in a relationship withstand cursory examination, as well as being inconsistent with the various contemporaneous documents exchanged between Robert and Victoria over that time, of which Alison was aware by the time of the trial.
26. I reject Alison's evidence that Mrs Markham did not ask any questions of Stephanie at the meeting on 2 January 2019 as being inconsistent with the evidence of Stephanie, Rose‑Marie and Mrs Markham as to what occurred at the meeting, which is addressed in further detail below.
27. Further, for the reasons addressed below in relation to the issue of Robert's death certificate in mid-January 2019, I find that Alison and Stephanie did not instruct Mrs Markham not to arrange for the issue of the death certificate in terms of the draft forwarded to Stephanie on 14 January 2019, and I find that they did not oppose that being done.
28. I therefore do not accept Alison's evidence unless it is contrary to her own interests, or supported by an independent witness or a contemporaneous document.

1. Rose-Marie is the first defendant in the proceedings. Her evidence in chief comprised her affidavit sworn 7 March 2024.[313]
2. Rose-Marie deposed that when her parents separated, she moved out of the Dwyer Street property and went to live with her mother and sisters. She did not live at the Dwyer Street property again.
3. After her parents separated, Rose-Marie came to learn over a few years that Robert and Victoria were seeing each other. She did not meet Victoria until approximately late 2004.
4. Rose-Marie would have seen Victoria once or twice a year between 2004 and 2018. She left a note at Dwyer Street in around 2004 which said:

Hi Dad & Vicki. Came to see you. Dad I'll pop in @work tomorrow. Lose Rose + Nick.

1. Rose-Marie's evidence was that she addressed the note to Robert and Victoria, she always knew Victoria did not live at Dwyer Street, and mentioned Victoria to be polite. She did not consider Robert and Victoria to be in any type of serious relationship. In cross‑examination, Rose-Marie accepted that she 'maybe' knew that Robert and Victoria were in a relationship at the time she left the note,[314] and they were boyfriend and girlfriend in the early days.[315]
2. Her evidence was that Robert never spoke to her in a way that would indicate that he and Victoria were in a de facto relationship. Victoria rarely came up in conversations Rose-Marie had with Robert, but when he did speak about her, he would say things to the effect of 'why pay a cleaner when I have Vicky'.
3. Robert never spoke to Rose-Marie about wanting to marry Victoria. Her evidence was that after divorcing Kerry he told her, in effect, that he would never get married again.
4. Rose-Marie invited Robert and Victoria to her wedding in April 2008. Her explanation for naming Victoria in the invitation was that she thought they were friends,[316] and to be polite.[317]
5. Rose-Marie attended the Dwyer Street property every year between 2005 and 2018 on Christmas day, usually in the morning. Victoria was there at Christmas on approximately six occasions, including in 2018. Victoria was not there on Christmas day 2016.
6. Rose-Marie identified a photograph of Stephanie, herself, Victoria and her grandmother as having been taken on Christmas day, but could not identify the year, other than to say it was quite some time ago.[318] Rose‑Marie stayed that day for an hour or two. Victoria was there while Rose‑Marie was present. Her evidence was that Robert would have taken the photograph if he was not in it.[319]
7. Rose-Marie also visited Robert at Dwyer Street for his birthday on occasions, but not every year. She did not mention whether Victoria was present on any of those occasions, other than in or around 2004 to 2007.[320] Her evidence is that on that occasion, Alison and a friend of hers was present, as was Victoria. Robert was talking to Alison's friend and every time we said anything he would say 'be quiet'. He had been drinking. When Victoria brought out the cake, she said, 'Bob, make a wish' and Robert responded, 'I wish you weren't here'.
8. Victoria did not dispute that evidence in her affidavit sworn 13 September 2024.
9. Rose-Marie's evidence is that she would see Victoria once or twice a year.
10. Rose-Marie gave a Christmas card to Robert and Victoria in 2018 addressed to 'dear dad & Vicki', and signed 'lots of love Rose'.
11. On Christmas Day 2018, Rose-Marie and Stephanie went in the morning to see Robert at Dwyer Street for Christmas. Victoria arrived while they were there, and stayed for approximately 40 minutes. Victoria was talking on the telephone to someone for much of the time she was there.
12. The basis for Rose-Marie's assumption that Robert and Victoria's relationship had ended was that Robert did not speak of Victoria to her.[321] She had no idea why her father would state his relationship status as 'de facto' in loan documents provided to the NAB Bank.[322]
13. Rose-Marie stated that Victoria was not Robert's de facto partner because, although Victoria was Robert's girlfriend, 'de facto means living together, having properties together', and they did not have any of that.[323] She believed that Victoria was in a relationship with Robert at some stage, but she did not believe that it was a de facto relationship.[324]
14. As with Alison and Stephanie, Rose-Marie asserted that Robert would have nominated Victoria as a beneficiary of his private health insurance to save money, but she had no basis for that opinion.[325] Having seen the documents relating to Robert's medical insurance, Rose‑Marie maintained her position that Robert and Victoria were just friends.[326]
15. Rose-Marie identified her father's signature on his 2017 tax return,[327] and his handwriting on the 2017 hospital admission form where Robert identified Victoria as his partner.[328]
16. Rose-Marie's evidence was that the sisters were at Dwyer Street on 29 December 2018 to go into Robert's office. She said that they had bills Robert owed that needed to be paid. She initially said that they had told Victoria that they were coming over, but then said she could not remember whether they had done so.
17. How the sisters knew of those bills and why they thought they needed to be dealt with four days after Robert's death was not explained. Rose‑Marie stated that she knew there were bills to pay 'because Alison was looking after all of that'. They did not have the bills, which 'would have been' in Robert's office.[329]
18. Victoria ushered them out of the house.[330] Outside the house, she and her sisters made a telephone call to John Palermo, who she knew to be Robert's accountant, on 29 December 2018, from Dwyer Street. Mr Palermo passed on his condolences and said that he wanted to see the sisters together alone, and that he knew exactly what Robert's wishes were.
19. She could not recall whether the telephone conversation with Mr Palermo was on speaker.[331]
20. Mr Palermo said he was going on holiday on 4 January 2019 and so arranged an urgent meeting at his office on 3 January 2019. Rose‑Marie's evidence is that during that telephone call Mr Palermo told them how close he was with Robert and that he saw him for coffee every Thursday.
21. Rose-Marie confirmed that her specific recollection was that Mr Palermo had told them of his closeness with Robert and having coffee with him every Thursday in that telephone call. Told her sisters had said something different, Rose-Marie changed her evidence to say that it had been at the meeting.[332] Asked whether she or her sisters was right about when those statements were made, Rose‑Marie said it could be her sisters.[333]
22. Rose-Marie did not address the meeting with Carmel Markham and Victoria at Mareena Purslowe's office on 2 January 2019 in her affidavit.
23. In cross-examination, Rose-Marie's evidence as to why she had not done so was:

In your evidence-in-chief, you say nothing about a meeting with Mareena Purslowe, meeting Carmel Markham, do you?---No.

Were you present at that meeting?---I was present. Yes. But I didn't really - it was Stephanie and - Stephanie, mainly, and Alison.

But you were present at that meeting?---Yes. I was present. But I - I wasn't - - -

Why didn't - - -?--- - - - the signatory or anything like that.

Why didn't you tell us about your presence and what you recall happened at that meeting?---Because I - I don't really understand exactly, you know? Like, I know what happened, but that wasn't involving me.

You don't recall, understand perfectly what happened. Is that what you are saying?---I - I wasn't - I wasn't paying attention to that when Stephanie was filling out the forms.

1. Rose-Marie said that Victoria was present because she was a good friend of Robert, and to support the sisters.[334] Why that would be so when none of the sisters claimed to have a close relationship with Victoria was not explained.
2. As to how Stephanie came to sign the documents, Rose‑Marie's evidence was:

From what you observed at that meeting, Carmel Markham didn't do anything or say anything to make - to force people to sign documents, did she?---No, I don't - no.

She didn't rush anybody to do things. She was very mindful and respectful of the grieving family, wasn't she?---Yes - yes, she was lovely.

And you saw your sister sign documents at that meeting, didn't you?‑‑‑I - I - yes, I did.

And do you recall her going through the documents before she signed them?---She had two pieces of paper, and I - I saw her sign them. I -sign on two - two pieces of paper.

1. Rose-Marie was cross-examined the next day about her statutory declaration made 10 August 2022. Her evidence was:

And go back to the first page of the stat dec, about three lines down:

My father's death certificate was fraudulently approved by a non-family member.

?---Yes.

What's the fraud you talk about?---Well, it - it was already filled in.

You're saying somebody fraudulent - 'fraud' means a criminal offence ‑ ‑ ‑?---Well - - -

doesn't it?---It was filled in. It was filled in. It wasn't filled in by - it was already filled in when we sat down, so - - -

So it was pre-filled in by somebody?---Yes.

So who is responsible for the fraud, you say?---Well, the funeral parlour.

And you talk about an ambush and series of threats behind the scenes by Lia, Victoria and her brother?---Exactly.

Series of threats?---Yes. There's emails and emails and phone calls.

1. Rose‑Marie was not re-examined about the discrepancy in her evidence about Stephanie 'filling out the forms' during the meeting and her evidence that the forms were pre-filled.
2. None of the emails to which Rose-Marie referred were adduced in evidence, unless they were the emails passing between Victoria's daughter and Mrs Markham over the period 14 to 15 January 2019. No emails were put to Mr Varelis, nor was he cross‑examined about having made any threat to any person at the Mareena Purslowe funeral home.
3. Rose-Marie inspected the documents obtained on subpoena from Sussan Corporation at her solicitors' office, and was later sent copies.[335] Rose-Marie claimed not to have seen the letter from Sussan Corporation in response to the subpoena which stated that its records showed Victoria's address to have been 11 Dwyer Street at one time, nor Victoria's June 2008 employment contract showing her address as Dwyer Street.
4. She did not know how she decided which documents to include in her statutory declaration. She was not sure who selected those documents.[336]
5. Rose-Marie did not think that 'it was that big a deal' to exclude the documents showing Victoria's address as 11 Dwyer Street from her statutory declaration.[337]
6. Rose-Marie's statutory declaration also did not include a copy of the Application for Permission to Cremate form signed by Stephanie on 2 January 2019, which stated Robert's marital status to be 'de facto'.[338] She accepted that she must have had a copy of the document, and initially accepted that it 'could be possible' that the reason that document was excluded was that it referred to Robert being in a de facto relationship, but then said she did not know why it was excluded.[339]
7. Her evidence regarding the meeting on 3 January 2019 at Mr Palermo's office was that he opened the office for them. He gave them his condolences and said that he would like to attend the funeral but was going to be away.
8. Rose-Marie said that Mr Palermo said at the meeting that he knew Robert's wishes and that he had coffee with Robert every Thursday. The topic of Robert's will came up and Mr Palermo said that he did not know about a will but would check with his staff when he returned from holiday.
9. Rose-Marie's evidence was that Alison asked Mr Palermo about a shopping centre syndicate that Robert was involved in, and that was when the meeting ended abruptly. Mr Palermo took their names and phone numbers and started to walk them out. In cross‑examination, she said:

We got there. He sat us down, and he said that he was very sorry about Dad's passing, and he said he wished he could be at the funeral, but he was going to be away and he wanted to have us come in here and he knew Dad's wishes. He knew exactly what Dad wanted, and he took our names and our phone numbers, and then I remember Alison saying something about the shopping centre syndicate, and it was just shut down.

1. Her evidence‑in‑chief was that the whole meeting took 10 to 15 minutes, and in cross-examination that it took 20 to 30 minutes. Rose‑Marie did not suggest that any of the sisters asked Mr Palermo at the meeting what were said to be Robert's wishes.
2. Rose-Marie said in cross-examination that she knew Robert and John Palermo had coffee together very regularly. Asked how she knew that, Rose-Marie initially said that Stephanie had told her, then withdrew that.[340] She then mentioned that her cousin Joanne saw Robert having coffee with John.[341] Asked to confine her answer only to what she knew, Rose-Marie volunteered that her father talked about Mr Palermo and called Mr Palermo a 'little ding'.[342]
3. Rose-Marie subsequently confirmed that the 'Joanne' to which she referred was Joanne Smith, who was yet to give evidence as to the existence of the alleged 2008 will.[343] Ms Smith's affidavit made no mention of Robert having coffee with Mr Palermo.
4. Rose-Marie stated that she did not know how she came to know that Ms Smith had said that Mr Palermo had coffee with Robert.[344] She did not know how she came to know that Mr Palermo was referred to as a 'little ding'. It was not from Robert.[345]
5. In cross-examination, Rose-Marie stated that Alison would send unsigned affidavits to her for her to have a look at, for Rose‑Marie to make her own affidavit.[346] Her evidence was that Alison would write her (Alison's) affidavit, and then email Rose‑Marie the unsigned document. Rose-Marie would look through that document, and then make her affidavit.[347] The next day, she sought to correct her evidence about Alison having sent her draft affidavits, and said that she had meant 'stat. dec.'[348]
6. Rose-Marie denied that she and her sisters had discussed their evidence together, saying that she had her own idea of what she wanted to say.[349]
7. Rose-Marie understood Robert and Victoria's relationship to be one of 'boyfriend and girlfriend' for the earlier part of their relationship, when they started going out, although she referred to Victoria having an affair with her father.[350]
8. After about five years, Rose-Marie did not see Victoria and did not hear about her. She did not believe that Robert and Victoria had lived together, based on the fact that Robert's house remained unchanged.[351]
9. Rose-Marie was present in court during Victoria's case. She did not believe at all the evidence of the witnesses called in Victoria's case.[352] She considered all that evidence to be false. Having heard that evidence and seen the documents discovered in the proceedings and tendered at the trial in Victoria's case, Rose‑Marie's evidence was that Victoria did not live at Dwyer Street at all. She based that view on her observations when she went to Dwyer Street a few times a year, when she did not see Victoria or seldom saw her there, apart from occasionally at Christmas.[353]
10. In cross-examination, Rose‑Marie accepted that she might go to Dwyer Street ten times a year, including Christmas and Robert's birthday.[354] She denied that she was not at Dwyer Street regularly enough to know if Victoria lived there.[355]
11. Her evidence in cross-examination was that she did not know what medical problems her father had in 2017 and 2018 because he never spoke about things like that. She did not visit him in hospital in 2017 because she did not know he was there.[356] Rose‑Marie did not recall whether Victoria was at Dwyer Street when Rose‑Marie visited her father after she had found out about his operation.[357]
12. Rose-Marie knew that Stephanie would go to Dwyer Street on weekends after Robert's divorce.
13. In my judgment, Rose‑Marie's evidence has to be carefully scrutinised. On occasion, Rose-Marie was unable to distinguish in giving evidence between what she knew of her own observations and what she had been told by others, which requires that care be taken in assessing her evidence.
14. While I find that aspects of Rose‑Marie's evidence should be accepted, I find that she was not always a credible witness, and was partisan so far as her evidence of Robert and Victoria's relationship is concerned, for several reasons.
15. First, Rose-Marie was present throughout the presentation of Victoria's case. She saw not only the witnesses called by Victoria in the course of the trial, but had also seen Robert's tax returns, private health insurance documents, National Australia Bank loan documents and hospital admission forms completed or submitted by Robert prior to commencement of the trial.
16. Further, Victoria had been present in Robert's life for about 14 years, although Rose‑Marie claims to have seen her infrequently over that time.
17. Rose-Marie's own opinion of the nature of Robert's relationship with Victoria were based on what she saw when visiting 11 Dwyer Street ten or so times a year, including Christmas and occasionally for Robert's birthday, what she claims was said to her by Robert about Victoria and little else.
18. In my judgment, Rose-Marie's refusal to concede that Victoria was more than Robert's girlfriend, considered in context, can only be regarded as unreasonable.
19. However, I accept portions of her evidence as to what occurred at the meeting with Mrs Markham on 2 January 2019 and, to a degree, in the meeting with Mr Palermo on 3 January 2019.

1. Stephanie is the youngest of the three sisters. She is 15 years younger than Alison and 20 years younger than Rose‑Marie.
2. Stephanie was 6 or 7 years old when her parents separated. She would spent Sunday nights with her father, he taking her to school on Monday mornings. She continued to spend Sunday nights at Dwyer Street until her late teens, in about mid-2004.
3. Stephanie deposed that she[358] would regularly sleep in her father's room until she was about 12 years old. Her evidence was that she did not see any female clothing or belongings in his room in all the times she stayed at Dwyer Street, and did not recall Victoria ever being at Dwyer Street while she was there.
4. Stephanie deposed that Victoria came to Dwyer Street several times in the early to mid-2000s, but her visits were brief and she did not stay the night. She did not recall Robert and Victoria ever displaying any signs of affection or anything that would indicate that they were romantically involved.
5. Robert did not ever introduce Victoria to Stephanie as his partner or girlfriend.
6. Stephanie's deposed that Victoria's daughter, Lia, and she developed a friendship 'unrelated to [their] parents knowing each other'. Stephanie's evidence was that they would spend time together at Dwyer Street, Kerry's house and the shops. Lia was a bit older than Stephanie and they lost touch in around 2006.
7. She agreed that Lia came to the house on weekends with her mother, Victoria,[359] and that she had met Lia through Victoria.[360] Stephanie seemed to accept that Lia slept at Dwyer Street, although her evidence was that Victoria did not sleep there while Stephanie was there.[361]
8. Stephanie accepted, having been shown a birthday card she had given Lia, that her friendship with Lia had developed by 1999.[362]
9. Stephanie also accepted that she just did not know whether Victoria was living at Dwyer Street after she finished school, because she was only at the property approximately a dozen times a year after that time.[363] Her evidence was that she only knew the position because of what her father had said.[364]
10. Robert had not told Stephanie in 2017 that he was undergoing knee surgery.[365]
11. Stephanie acknowledged that there were certain family events Victoria attended with her father. She identified a photograph of herself with Victoria's children,[366] but could not state when or where it was taken, and another photograph of herself, aged about 13 or 14, with Robert, Victoria and Stephanie's grandparents.[367] Another photograph showed Stephanie, Rose-Marie, their grandmother and Victoria one Christmas.[368]
12. Her evidence was that Vicky was present on a few occasions on Christmas Day in the almost 20 years since Stephanie's parents separated. If Vicky visited on Christmas, she would leave by lunchtime to celebrate with her own family.
13. In around late 2004, Stephanie attended drinks at Robert's muffler shop on several occasions. She would sometimes see her father's friends Chum Taylor and Dario Sussa there. Her evidence was that whenever the topic came up, Robert would say words to the effect that he would never get involved in another serious relationship with another woman that would put him at risk of another financial payout.
14. Stephanie recalled Victoria attended the funeral for her uncle Carl in 2004 and that of her grandfather in 2005. She did not recall seeing Victoria at her uncle Tony's funeral in 2013.
15. Stephanie worked in the United States as a nanny in 2013 and 2014. She sent a card dated 13 February 2013 addressed 'Hi Dad and Vicky' to the Dwyer Street address.[369] Her explanation for referring to Victoria was that she assumed her father would show the card to Victoria, and that she wanted to be polite. She denied having done so because she knew Victoria was living at Dwyer Street with Robert,[370] although she conceded that she knew Victoria 'was in his life' and that was the reason she had addressed the card to both of them.[371] Stephanie agreed that Victoria was more than a friend at that point in time.[372]
16. Stephanie also sent a postcard to Robert at Dwyer Street from Ireland in 2009 or 2010, again addressed to 'Dad + Vicky'.[373]
17. Stephanie accepted that she had sent her love to both of them in each card.[374]
18. Stephanie also gave a Christmas card to 'Dad + Vicky'. She could not identify the year in which she did so.[375] She accepted that she did so because they were in a relationship,[376] although not that they were 'an item'.[377]
19. Stephanie's evidence was that she saw her father at the Mezz shopping centre (I infer during the day), on a few occasions between 2017 and 2018, when he was grocery shopping. She did not recall seeing Victoria with Robert on those occasions.
20. Stephanie believed that Robert preferred to do his socialising other than at home, at places such as his workplace, the Mezz, Oxford Street and North Beach. She did not identify how she came to know of him frequenting each of those places.
21. Stephanie visited her father at Dwyer Street on Christmas Day 2018. Rose-Marie was there when she arrived. Victoria was also there, but Stephanie cannot recall whether Victoria arrived before Rose‑Marie or after Stephanie.
22. Stephanie and Rose-Marie left after several hours. Stephanie's evidence is that Vicky said she was going to her daughter's house for lunch with her family and grandchildren. She did not recall Victoria preparing lunch for Robert.
23. Stephanie returned to Dwyer Street later that Christmas Day. It is implicit in her affidavit that Victoria and the police were already there. Stephanie's evidence is that Victoria told the police that she (Victoria) did not know that Robert owned guns, had a gun safe or that there were guns stored in the house, and did not know where the key for the side gate was.
24. Stephanie stayed the night at Dwyer Street with Victoria. She said that was because they were both exhausted and did not want to drive home.
25. In cross-examination, Stephanie stated that Victoria went 'home' the day after Christmas 2018 because Victoria did not have any clothes with her. Stephane's explanation for not having said so in her affidavit was that was not the kind of question she was asked by the lawyers. Asked whether she was suggesting that Victoria had no clothes at Dwyer Street, Stephanie avoided the question, stating that Victoria came to see her father that night[378] - an answer she could not know to be true, and a proposition not put to Victoria in cross‑examination.
26. Stephanie's evidence was that she had a pleasant relationship with Victoria until the commencement of these proceedings. She was not overly close with Victoria but would when Stephanie saw her, Stephanie would be polite and engage in general conversation.
27. Stephanie did not recall speaking to Victoria about her relationship with Robert in too much detail, but recalled Victoria occasionally said to her that Robert was 'an idiot', and 'an asshole'.
28. Stephanie's evidence is that she telephoned John Palermo from inside the Dwyer Street House on 29 December 2018.
29. Stephanie's evidence of the meeting with John Palermo on 3 January 2019 was as follows:

On or about 3 January 2019, my sisters and I met with Mr Palermo at his office in Leederville before he went away the next day. I recall the following took place during this meeting:

(a) Mr Palermo said in words to the effect that he was very close with my father,

(b) he saw my father for coffee every Thursday and all of my father's assets and money had been left to me and my sisters equally, including the Dwyer Street Property and three commercial properties in Mount Hawthorn, which were all in his personal name and not a company name;

(c) Alison then asked Mr Palermo in words to the effect if he knew anything about my father's interest in a shopping centre syndicate;

(d) Mr Palermo responded in words to the effect that he did not know anything about the shopping centre syndicate and instead asked for all of our phone numbers, which we gave him, and he then ended the meeting;

(e) Alison then asked Mr Palermo in words to the effect if he had a copy of my father's will; and

(f) Mr Palermo responded by saying words to the effect that he did not know if he had a copy of my father's will and said he would check with his staff when they returned from the festive holidays.

1. In cross-examination, Stephanie's evidence was that they went to the meeting because Mr Palermo invited them. She was not anxious to find out if there was a will.[379]
2. Stephanie said that when they meet with Mr Palermo, he said that 'Your dad was up and down these stairs every Thursday, just about'. Her evidence was that the meeting lasted 20 to 30 minutes.[380]
3. Stephanie stated that after some pleasantries, Mr Palermo started speaking to them about Robert's assets. She said that Mr Palermo told them that 'everything was to us three girls', and that Rose-Marie was mistaken in her recollection of what occurred.[381] He did not tell them in what proportion the assets were to be split.
4. Confronted with her affidavit evidence that Mr Palermo had told them that Robert had left everything to them equally, Stephanie claimed that she did not understand the word 'proportions', and that she did not understand the relevance of the question.[382]
5. Her evidence was that they were talking about different things, including Robert's assets, and that Alison asked Mr Palermo about a syndicate in a shopping centre. She agreed that, in terms of Robert's wishes, all Mr Palermo said was that everything had been left to all the sisters.
6. Stephanie's evidence was that was not all that was said, but implied that she could not recall everything said. According to her, Mr Palermo was talking about how long he knew their father.[383]
7. She said that they asked Mr Palermo for a will, and he said he would have to ask his staff, it was not something he would know off-hand. He told them his staff was on holidays and that he would get back to them about whether he had it. Stephanie agreed that it was odd that Mr Palermo told them he knew Robert's wishes when he did not know whether he had his will.[384]
8. Stephanie said that Alison asked Mr Palermo whether Robert had an interest in a syndicate or something with a shopping centre, and then Mr Palermo got a bit funny, and shut down the meeting pretty quickly. Stephanie identified the shopping centre as Ballajura shopping centre.[385]
9. In early 2019 Stephanie telephoned John Rando and asked him whether he could tell her anything about her father's will. Her evidence is that Mr Rando said that he would have his staff check the files for me, but that he had not seen Robert for many years.
10. On a date after Robert's funeral, the sisters, together with Sarah Bailey and another woman gained access to the Dwyer Street property through the garage. Stephanie agreed that they were in the house for approximately 90 minutes before Victoria returned,[386] and her evidence was that they were searching the house during that time.[387]
11. It is telling that none of the sisters or Ms Bailey stated that they had searched the bedroom at Dwyer Street, although Stephanie at least knew the safe was there. Nor did they say that they did not find any of Victoria's clothing at the house.
12. Stephanie's evidence was that Victoria was a friend of Robert at the time of his death,[388] although it had been more than friendship in the early years.[389]
13. Stephanie was a difficult witness. She did not directly answer the questions put to her by counsel, instead giving her own narrative.[390] She refused to make obvious concessions, such as whether her father had submitted his 2017 tax return to the Australian Taxation Office in the terms of the copy adduced at the trial, in circumstances where there was no suggestion and certainly no evidence that the copy was not an authentic copy.[391] Her position was that she was not able to accept anything that was not able to be subpoenaed.[392] Stephanie sought to add gratuitously to her answers to questions.[393]
14. Stephanie's explanation for why Victoria and Robert had the same private health insurance was to save money. Stephanie subsequently speculated that having joint private medical insurance would be a tax benefit.[394]
15. As to the first matter, Stephanie stated that she knew that her mother and father, for a long time 'kept joint policies for a cost factor.'[395] I do not accept that evidence. Kerry made no mention of that in her evidence, although Kerry gave the same explanation for Victoria being nominated as a beneficiary under Robert's health insurance. Kerry and Robert separated in 1993, when Stephanie was six years old, and Stephanie was 11 or 12 years old when Kerry and Robert divorced.
16. Stephanie gave evidence that Robert would falsely tell a health insurer that someone was his partner. She did not give a foundation for that assertion, other than that was her opinion of her father.[396]
17. Stephanie made no inquiry of any of HBF, Medibank Private or Bupa as to whether single cover was more or less expensive than couples coverage.[397]
18. Her belief was, based on what she had seen, that Victoria would have reimbursed him for the cost of the health insurance.[398] That was not put to Victoria in cross-examination. Stephanie's evidence was that there were bank statements 'of what Vicky owed' which supported that claim, although she admitted, in essence, that was speculation on her part.[399]
19. Stephanie asserted that Robert never paid anything for Victoria, and then agreed that she did not know that.[400] Stephanie then asserted that there were pages of Robert's bank statements with highlighted specific lines noted 'Vicky owes'.[401]
20. In further cross-examination, Stephanie said she had been 'briefed' by Alison on what Alison had seen in Victoria's discovery,[402] and that there were definitely highlights on bank statements she had seen in his study after Robert's death, and that he had written on the statements 'Vicky owes', or 'debt' or something like that.[403]
21. A call was made for those bank statements.[404] Stephanie's cross‑examination was adjourned over the weekend to enable the call to be answered. The documents produced in answer to the call were tendered as exhibit AA9.
22. The documents did not make out Stephanie's claim. One was two pages of Robert's Visa credit card statement in 2017, which bore the notation 'Vickey Recurring Debit', with two line entries relating to what appeared to be an internet service, another was a cheque stub for $4,000 recording the payee as Victoria with the notation 'loan', and the third was another stub which might record a loan of $450 to Victoria or the repayment of a loan in that amount to her.
23. Having identified Robert's 2017 St John of God Hospital admission form was in Robert's handwriting and bore his signature,[405] Stephanie accepted that Robert was better placed than herself to know the nature of his relationship with Victoria.[406]
24. Her position was nonetheless that, having heard the witnesses called in Robert's case, she did not agree that Victoria lived at Dwyer Street, although she accepted that she may have slept there.[407] She based her position on the fact that there were no female belongings at the house.[408]
25. Stephanie's evidence in cross-examination was that Victoria introduced her to Carmel Markham.[409] There was no mention of Victoria having insisted that the family use Mrs Markham.
26. In cross-examination, Stephanie accepted that she had spoken to Victoria about her relationship with Robert over the period 2016 to 2018.[410] Stephanie sought to characterise that relationship not as a de facto relationship nor as boyfriend and girlfriend, but like her (Stephanie's) relationship with her sister or schoolfriend.[411]
27. On 29 December 2018 the sisters were at the Dwyer Street house. Stephanie's evidence is that her cousin Biagio, the graphic designer, was there, and other members of the Rispoli family came to the house, but she said that she could not say who was there and who was not there.
28. Stephanie's evidence is that the sisters were looking through a wooden box of photographs to select those to be shown at Robert's funeral.
29. Stephanie agreed that there were photographs of Robert and Victoria together that were shown in the slideshow at the funeral. Asked whether they were obtained that day, Stephanie's evidence was that she did not believe she obtained all the photographs shown at the funeral, and subsequently that the photographs of Victoria and Robert had not come from her.[412] Stephanie accepted that Victoria arrived at Dwyer Street while Stephanie and her cousin Biagio were there. Biagio had his laptop with him. He prepared the slideshow.[413]
30. Stephanie said that there was nothing of Victoria in the wooden box.[414]
31. Stephanie's evidence was that Rose-Marie's evidence that they telephoned John Palermo outside the Dwyer Street house was incorrect. Stephanie said she telephoned Mr Palermo from inside the Dwyer Street house. Stephanie had her father's Teledex. Her evidence was that they (she and her sisters) were telling people of Robert's death,[415] but she could not recall whether that was the same day that she looked through the box of photographs.[416]
32. She said that she told Mr Palermo that Robert had died. Stephanie knew that he had been her father's accountant. Her evidence was that Mr Palermo gave his condolences and said that he was very close to Robert. Stephanie's evidence was that Mr Palermo was quite shaken by Robert's death, and invited the sisters in, saying he wanted to speak to us. On Stephanie's evidence, he told them he knew what Robert's wishes were. He said that he was happy to help. They then made an appointment to come in on his holidays to see them. [417]
33. He did not tell them he and Robert had coffee every Thursday during that telephone call.[418]
34. Stephane did not identify why her trial affidavit omitted reference to the meeting with Mrs Markham on 2 January 2019, but denied it was because she signed a document saying Victoria was a de facto of Robert or that Robert was in a de facto relationship.[419]
35. The omission was surprising because, as already noted, Stephanie had signed the Application for Cremation form which stated Robert's relationship status to be 'de facto' at that meeting, and had subsequently maintained that was incorrect.
36. In her affidavit sworn 15 August 2019,[420] at an early stage in the proceedings, Stephanie's evidence regarding that meeting was as follows:

The Plaintiff wanted us to use Mareena Purslowe in Subiaco for Robert's funeral arrangements, because she had a friend who worked there by the name of Carmel Markham ('Carmel').

This went against my better judgment and our families' wishes as our family only ever used Bowra and O'Dea.

The Plaintiff also advised that she only made enough to live and could not contribute to the funeral expenses.

During our first meeting with Mareena Purslowe, I was asked to answer particulars about Robert's parents, and his children among other things. I was also the signatory on the funeral account, listed as next of kin, and responsible for payment.

...

The Plaintiff's name was already pre-filled as 'defacto' on Robert's temporary death certificate draft particulars prior to our arrival.

I advised Carmel that I wanted to check some details outside of her office and get back to her, but I was pressured to sign off the draft particulars then and there. I was reassured this was only a draft and Carmel would have this finalised with all of the correct information provided from me to approve in due course.

At that time, I did not know the definition of the term defacto.

Much to my surprise, the Plaintiff's daughter, Evangelia Karakyriakos, authorised the final temporary death certificate by email on 14 January 2019, which I was copied into, after a barrage of calls and emails to staff and the State Manager, Daniel McKeig, at Mareena Purslowe requesting an urgent turn around.

1. Mrs Markham's evidence did not suggest that she prepared such a document at the meeting or asked Stephanie to sign it at that time. Mrs Markham was not cross-examined about the existence of such a document.
2. Again, there was no evidence of the barrage of calls or emails. I have already noted that Mr McKeig was not called to give evidence.
3. In her affidavit sworn 7 March 2024,[421] Stephanie's evidence was that on or about 7 January 2019 Victoria's daughter Lia continuously made attempts to contact Stephanie by telephone while she was at work, and that when Stephanie eventually spoke to her that week, Victoria's daughter Lia 'demanded that [Stephanie] approve the death certificate application for the Deceased with Mareena Purslowe Funerals, which was to list Vicky as the Deceased's de facto partner at the time of his passing, as [Stephanie] was the only authority on the funeral services agreement'. Stephanie's evidence is that she refused to do so and told her not to contact her anymore.
4. Stephanie made no mention of that telephone conversation in her affidavit sworn 19 August 2019.
5. On 14 January 2019 Mrs Markham sent an email to Victoria's daughter, copied to Stephanie, and two people I infer were employees of Mareena Purslowe.[422] That email stated:

Good morning Lia and Stephanie

Please find attached as requested by Lia and Vicki, the registration details and a copy of the paid account.

The registration for the death can be lodged today if you both let the office know the details are correct.

1. One of the attachments to the email was Mareena Purslowe's invoice, dated 4 January 2019 and indicating that it had been paid on 10 January 2019.
2. The other was a printed document, headed 'Funeral Directors Online' which I infer from its appearance and content was generated by Mareena Purslowe using a Department of Justice online system for lodging details of a person's death. The document contained details of Robert's full name, address, date of birth and death, and occupation. It also contained details of his parent's names, the full names and dates of birth of the sisters, details of his former marriage, and identified Victoria as his de facto at the time of his death.
3. The document was dated 7 January 2019. Apparently reading the document in the witness box, Stephanie stated that it had been prepared by Donna Randazzo on 7 January 2019.[423]
4. There is no evidence that the document was provided to any person who was a party to the proceedings, or for that matter, anyone else, prior to 14 January 2019. Stephanie did not know when she received it.[424]
5. As already noted, Mrs Markham's email of 14 January 2019 stated that the document could be lodged that day if both Lia and Stephanie agreed. Mrs Markham was not cross-examined as to whether Stephanie had instructed her not to refer to Victoria as Robert's de facto on the death certificate Stephanie did not agree, nor as to whether Stephanie did not agree, whether on 14 January 2019 or some later date, to the provision of particulars in the form forwarded to her on that date.
6. Nor did Stephanie give evidence as to the further correspondence which took place between Mrs Markham and Stephanie and Alison, other than to identify that it was part of the email chain between Mareena Purslowe Funerals to which I refer below.
7. Asked to identify which parts of the Application for Cremation and Instruction for Ashes form[425] had been pre-filled on 2 January 2019, Stephanie was unable to do so.[426] She accepted that some of the document would have had to be written in the meeting, and that she signed it.[427]
8. Asked the same question in relation to the Application for Permit to Cremate form,[428] Stephanie's evidence was that parts were already pre‑filled because Mrs Markham said that there were few things she had to check with Stephanie, things that she did not know the answers to.[429] Stephanie accepted that she did not know with any certainty which parts of the form had been pre-filled.[430]
9. Stephanie's evidence was that she could not confirm whether she saw the front of the form at the time of the meeting.[431] Asked whether she accepted that she could not say whether the words 'de facto' were pre‑filled or filled in at the meeting, Stephanie initially avoided the question and stated that the words could have been added after the meeting,[432] but eventually accepted that she had no idea whether the words 'de facto' were present on the form when she signed it.
10. Stephanie's evidence was that she did not know what the words 'de facto' meant at the time she signed that form. Stephanie was 31 years old at that time.[433]
11. Questioned about her evidence at [36] of her affidavit sworn August 2019 that Victoria's name was already pre-filled on temporary death certificate draft particulars prior to her arrival, Stephanie stated that the temporary death certificate was emailed to her to approve.[434] Stephanie then stated that her earlier affidavit had been in error,[435] and, in essence, blamed her then solicitors for the error.[436]
12. She stated that she never asked for the reference to Victoria to be in the document.[437]
13. Stephanie accepted that she would have been given the opportunity to read the Application for Permit to Cremate form,[438] but immediately said that she did not read it, and stated that she was just handed pages to sign.[439] Stephanie then said that she had the opportunity to read the form and did not take it.[440]
14. She then again accepted that no-one precluded her from reading the form, and no one deprived her of the opportunity to do so.[441]
15. Stephanie was then asked about her evidence of August 2019 that she was 'pressured to sign off the draft particulars there and then'. Her explanation was that she was talking about a different document from the Application for Permit to Cremate form, and that she had told Mrs Markham that she wanted to check some details outside her office on the day of the meeting.[442]
16. Stephanie said, concerning a temporary death certificate, that 'they needed to get that through to be able to proceed with my dad's arrangements',[443] a proposition not put to Mrs Markham and not otherwise supported by evidence. Asked whether she had signed off a temporary death certificate at the meeting, Stephanie said:

It would have been a draft, yes, that she needed to proceed with. But I don't - not physically sign, as in yes, that is as true as I know.

1. Stephanie accepted that she did not sign any temporary death certificate on 2 January 2019. She did not say that Mrs Markham prepared a document, or that Stephanie had been shown it. Asked to show that document, Stephanie said:

That would be in here, the document that I got from Mareena Purslowe that I never approved. That's the whole - that's how it ended up on the certificate.

1. Stephanie then said that 'the de facto was on the temporary death certificate that she sent through for final approval to me by email'.
2. Stephanie's explanation for the error when she swore her earlier affidavit was that 'it didn't really mean much, really, at the time'.[444] Stephanie then gave the following evidence:

Okay. I then asked you whether you had every opportunity to review the documents in the application for cremation and instruction for ashes, as well as the application for permit to cremate, and you said, 'Yes. I could have read them if I wanted to. I elected not to'?---Sure. Yes. Sorry. Correct.

So that means no one was saying, 'Sign now,' and rushing you out. That didn't happen, did it?---The one I was referring to was the particulars of my father's death certificate. I was not sure, number 1, about my grandmother's middle name, the way it was spelt - - -

But I'm asking you what document are you talking about?---There was a draft death certificate that - she needed particulars that would eventually go onto my father's physical death certificate. There was a temporary, and then there's a death certificate that comes from - once the coroner has done their thing, it comes months - I think it took over a year for us to get it.

And where is that draft document you signed?---I don't know.

...

So you were - - -?---Sorry. Let me rephrase. I've got the draft that she emailed me to sign off. That's what I have, an electronic.

But that's not the one you're talking about that you were put under pressure to sign?---No, no. Not - when I said sign, sign off on particulars about my father's family.

I see. So you were pressured to sign off the draft particulars then and there?---Yes. She was saying, 'Love, don't worry about it. We just need to get this through to get your dad's service underway. You will get a copy to approve.'

Well, what do you mean 'I was pressured to sign off'?---Well, say, 'Yes, that's okay for now,' sort of thing. I didn't - like, I didn't know exactly when my grandmother's - I think they were asking me when my grandparents were married, you know, middle names, things like that, and they said, 'It's not going to be the final death certificate. Don't worry.'

But you weren't talking about a death certificate; you're just talking about some particulars of information?---They needed a temporary death certificate to do Dad's arrangements.

And did she show you that document?---No.

...

Your reference to that:

I was pressured to sign off the draft particulars there and there ‑ ‑ ‑

?---Yes.

Then and there - - -

?---Yes.

You can only mean you were put under pressure to sign something there at that time?---Yes, correct.

And what was that? The - - -?---The - - -

- - - temporary death certificate?---No. I never signed a temporary death certificate.

So what did you sign?---I signed these two documents. And then I had to give her the authorization to submit her temporary - whatever it was, the - I don't know the intricacies of how - - -

What did you - what were you pressured to sign off that you did then and there?---It was the particulars of my family, my dad's family, that - I didn't know exactly the spelling or the dates of my parents' wedding or any of that.

And you say you were reassured it was only a draft?---Which it was, yes.

So you went ahead and signed it?---No, I didn't sign it. Sign off on - -

...

Did you sign off a third document that day?---Not physically, with a signature, no.

1. Stephanie signed three documents at the 2 January 2019 meeting with Mrs Markham - the funeral services agreement in digital form, the Application for Cremation and Instruction for Ashes form and the Application for Permit to Cremate form.
2. Stephanie eventually identified the 'Funeral Directors Online' document as the draft death certificate emailed to her for approval.[445] She stated that the draft document would have been created from inputting the particulars she gave Mrs Markham on 2 January 2019, but could not recall whether she 'signed off' on those particulars on that day.[446] Stephanie then said that she did not believe that she signed anything other than the two documents that day.[447]
3. Stephanie was cross-examined on her affidavit sworn 3 March 2023,[448] which attached a statutory declaration made by Stephanie dated 10 August 2022 which was provided to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Stephanie accepted that her intention in making the statutory declaration was to have the Registrar remove the reference to Victoria as Robert's de facto from his death certificate.[449]
4. Her evidence was that she wrote her own statutory declaration at her house in Stirling.[450]
5. She also accepted that she based her statutory declaration on a draft of a statutory declaration Alison intended to make of Alison, copies of documents obtained on subpoenas issued to Sussan Corporation and the Department of Transport in these proceedings, and the Application to Cremate and Instruction for Ashes and Application for Permit to Cremate forms Stephanie signed on 2 January 2019.[451]
6. In the last sentence of her statutory declaration, Stephanie stated:

I had reinforced to Carmel at the funeral parlour, prior to this date, that under no circumstances Victoria's name is to be listed on my father's death certificate.

1. Stephanie's evidence was that the date she was referring to was the date on which the draft death particulars had been forwarded to her.[452]
2. Stephanie's evidence in cross-examination was that she had been to the funeral parlour on more than one occasion, including a viewing, an occasion to pick up Robert's ashes, and a service to bury Robert's ashes,[453] although she did not mention any of those occasions prior to her cross-examination.
3. Asked when she reinforced to Mrs Markham that under no circumstances was Victoria's name to be listed on the death certificate, Stephanie stated that she assumed that it was when she received the email with the draft death particulars.[454] Asked what the occasion was when she told Mrs Markham that, Stephanie's evidence was:

I think it is meaning Carmel, like, from the funeral parlour. Sorry. I don't think it means at, as a physical place.

1. She did not identify when or how she instructed Mrs Markham not to include Victoria's name on the death certificate.
2. Stephanie stated in her statutory declaration regarding Lia's email to Mrs Markham dated 14 January 2019:

I phoned my sister Alison in tears when I saw this disrespectful email and went and saw her. Alison lives in Subiaco. Due to this ambushing, I never even had a chance to grieve the loss of my own father. Alison and I contacted Carmel together and said what on earth is going on? I said I do not approve dad's death certificate listing Victoria Varelis as Defacto. My sister and I asked how this was listed on here in the first place, querying if Carmel and Vicky were friends. Carmel replied that she knew Vicky only on a surface level from shopping at Sussan's clothing store in Subiaco. They were not personal friends and she had never met my father and she sincerely apologised to both of us. Yet, this did not stop my father's death certificate being approved and collected by someone other than myself. I am still unsure how this slipped through the net, particularly given how vocal I was. This has been collateral damage for my family and legislation needs to change here. This is a serious error.

Victoria's brother Peter Varelis wrote letters of complaint to Mareena Purslowe Subiaco until June 2019. He had absolutely no right to do this as the funeral contract and funeral service had nothing to do with him or his family. My 2 sisters, my mother and I arranged dad's service held on 4 January 2019, with no contribution from anyone outside of my immediate family. Lia, Peter and Vicky made constant threats until they obviously wore staff down and got what they wanted. I believe Kerrie Owen even received a call from WA Police on Lia's behalf asking her to release dad's death certificate - which Kerrie would not do. The lengths this family went to was disgusting. This is fraud and coercion and should be taken up by WAPOL.

The circumstances to follow meant my family have been prevented from my father's particulars, as a fraudulent document (that I thought was legally binding) has out ranked his own daughters.

1. Stephanie never identified in her evidence how 'vocal' she had been, to her than the telephone conversation she said occurred between Mrs Markham, Alison and herself on the morning of 14 January 2019.
2. Asked about her statutory declaration in cross-examination, Stephanie's evidence was as follows:[455]

You talk about threats, etcetera, a call from the police.

The lengths this family went to was disgusting. This is fraud and coercion and should be taken up by WAPOL.

?---Mmm.

What fraud are you referring to?---Well, the fact that they approved something that only I was legally able to do, and they have issued an apology.

So Mareena Purslowe was fraudulent, do you say?---Unless I have used the wrong terminology, but they admitted at fault. They have admitted fault for what they did.

You know, fraud is a very serious allegation, isn't it?---Well, sure. Yes.

You weren't truly suggesting a fraud had been committed?---Well, it was a - what is another word - a - they haven't abided by the agreement.

Yes. And then, in the next paragraph, you refer to a fraudulent document. Are you saying the death certificate with the word de facto was fraudulent? Is that what you are saying?---Sorry. Where are we? Sorry. The - - -

Last paragraph, second line?---A fraudulent document that I thought was leading (indistinct) - - -

You are talking about a death certificate referring to de facto. You are saying that is fraudulent, is it?---Well, it was never authorised by the authorised person. So maybe I have used fraudulent in the wrong way.

1. Stephanie also accepted that in preparing her statutory declaration she did not include the documents which showed Victoria's address as Dwyer Street, but only the documents which showed her address to be Matlock Street,[456] but subsequently said she was unable to answer questions about whether she had documents from her declaration and why she had done so because she did not remember which documents she had attached to her declaration.[457] She did not know whether she retained a copy of her statutory declaration with the attachments.[458]
2. She also did not recall if she attached the Application to Cremate and the Application for Permit to Cremate forms she signed on 2 January 2019 to her declaration.[459]
3. Stephanie was an unsatisfactory, unconvincing and partisan witness. As will be seen below, I have found that Stephanie was an unreliable historian in relation to what occurred at the meeting with Mrs Markham on 2 January 2019, in claiming to have been pressured into signing a document she ultimately accepted she did not sign that day or at any time thereafter.
4. Similarly, Stephanie's evidence as to how and when she claims to have instructed Mrs Markham not to refer to Victoria in Robert's death certificate was vague in the extreme, and inconsistent with the contemporaneous documents. For the reasons identified below in relation to her communications with Mrs Markham in mid‑January 2019, I find that Stephanie never gave any such an instruction.
5. Stephanie's explanation that she addressed cards to 'Dad & Vicky' simply to be polite - which I note was the same as that offered by her sisters - is unconvincing.
6. Stephanie was also unwilling to make reasonable concessions in cross‑examination. Although she accepted that her father was in a better position than she to understand the nature of his relationship with Victoria, Stephanie refused to accept the truth of documents Robert had authored or provided information for their creation which disclosed his relationship with Victoria as correct.
7. Similarly, Stephanie refused to accept the tendered copies of Robert's tax returns as true copies of the originals, in the absence of any evidence that would support that position, and in circumstances where it was never put to Mr Palermo that the documents produced by him or his company were false in any way.
8. Nor did Stephanie confine her evidence to matters which were within her own observation. Her explanation for Robert having included Victoria as a beneficiary on his private health insurance was given without having made any inquiry as to whether it had any basis in fact.
9. The conclusion that Stephanie is an unreliable historian is supported by the statutory declaration Stephanie made to support the application to amend Robert's death certificate by removing reference to Victoria was misleading, Stephanie having omitted all reference to the Application for Permit to Cremate, which identified Robert as having been in a de facto relationship and which she had signed, and any documents which showed Victoria's address as 11 Dwyer Street. The only reasons why I do not make a finding that Stephanie made a deliberately misleading statutory declaration was her claimed inability to produce a complete copy of the documents and her asserted inability to remember which documents she attached to it, but her credibility is severely affected by her having done so.
10. In that regard, Stephanie's evidence in her statutory declaration of having instructed Mrs Markham not to issue the death certificate including reference to Victoria is inconsistent both with her wholly unconvincing evidence in cross-examination as to when and how she gave that instruction, and with the emails passing between Mrs Markham and Alison and herself at the time, to which none of the witnesses were taken in their evidence and which are addressed further below.
11. Finally, Stephanie was prepared to make serious allegations of fraud against Victoria, her brother and her daughter to the Registrar of Birth, Deaths and Marriages. No admissible evidence was adduced at the trial to support the making of those allegations.
12. My assessment of Stephanie's credibility is that I would not accept her evidence unless it was contrary to her interests or those of Alison, or otherwise supported by a contemporaneous document or an independent witness.

1. Mr Christensen is a solicitor.
2. He deposed[460] that he had been retained by the interim administrator of Robert's estate, and that he had sworn his affidavit at the request of Alison 'to provide the Court with my observations of her business acumen and capabilities'.
3. As I have determined that Alison is unsuitable for appointment as administrator of the estate, it is unnecessary to recount his evidence or to reach any conclusion as to what weight might be given Mr Christensen's evidence regarding those matters.

1. The evidence‑in‑chief of Ms Brnjich comprised two affidavits, sworn 17 October 2023[461] and 2 May 2024[462] respectively. On their face, the affidavits were prepared by different firms of solicitors.
2. Before those affidavits were tendered, Ms Brnjich was asked whether the contents of each affidavit were true and correct, requested some minor amendments be made to her first affidavit, and otherwise confirmed the truth of both affidavits.[463]
3. Ms Brnjich was a poor witness. Her affidavits were inconsistent, and her evidence in cross-examination was confused, contradictory and unconvincing.
4. In her first affidavit, Ms Brnjich deposed to having on a couple of occasions while she was with Alison Rispoli, visited Robert at 11 Dwyer Street. Her evidence at that time, to the best of her recollection, was that one occasion was to drop off a Christmas present and the other a birthday present.
5. In her May 2024 affidavit, Ms Brnjich deposed to going with Alison to visit Robert 'on occasion' at Dwyer Street, and remembering that the house was 'undergoing renovations by Robert each time I went over to visit him with' Alison. Ms Brnjich went on to say that Robert appeared to her to live alone, and that she never saw him with any female partner and only knew him as a single man.
6. Although Ms Brnjich referred to Robert's house by its street address in both affidavits, she did not know the address when asked in cross-examination.[464] In cross-examination, she stated that she had only been to the house twice, and on one occasion, Robert was not home.[465] On the other occasion, she said that they had gone up to the door, gone into the kitchen and sat down in the kitchen.[466]
7. In her first affidavit, Ms Brnjich stated that Alison had asked her to assist on the day of the funeral. Her evidence was that, while she was handing out food to a group of people, 'including the lady, whom I did not know at the time, the lady said that Robert had left everything to his three gorgeous girls and that they would be fine.' Ms Brnjich said that she specifically recalled the words 'left everything to his three gorgeous girls' and 'that they would be fine', and that she had been standing within arm's reach of the lady when she said this.
8. Ms Brnjich said that she left the wake that day and 'still did not know who the lady who made those statements was.'
9. Later in her first affidavit, Ms Brnjich referred to having gone for a walk with Alison in December 2022, during which Ms Brnjich told Alison 'what I remembered from Robert's funeral'. She went on to say '[when] I spoke about the lady at the funeral and what she was saying, Ali told me that I was speaking about Victoria Varelis'.
10. In her second affidavit, Ms Brnjich's evidence was as follows:

I was handing out the food amongst the guests as well as mingling and chatting to everybody.

Whilst handing out food amongst the guests I was talking to a lady who I knew to be Victoria Varelis about how sad it was regarding Robert's passing and the devastation to his girls.

I remember Victoria was standing roughly at arm's length from where I was standing during this conversation.

Whilst having this conversation with Victoria, Victoria got on to the topic of Robert's Will and his Estate.

I was not sure why Victoria would be talking about Robert's Will or the Estate, but I did think at the time that it was quite odd for Victoria to be talking about Robert's Estate and what he was going to do with it.

To the best of my memory, Victoria said words to the effect that the girls will be fine, Robert has left everything in his Will to his three gorgeous girls (She said this in a very loud voice).

Considering I was handing out the food, I was in earshot overhearing Victoria Varelis repeating this message at least half a dozen times, to the guests at the wake, in a high pitch load (sic) voice.

1. Significantly, Ms Brnjich's evidence in her first affidavit was that Victoria was part of a group of people, but she deposed in her second affidavit to Victoria having been in conversation with her.
2. No guest at the wake was called to give evidence of the statements Ms Brnjich said had been made by Victoria. There was no suggestion that attempts had been made to identify those persons, but had proved unsuccessful.
3. When cross-examined about having been told by Alison that she (Ms Brnjich) had been talking about Victoria, Ms Brnjich said that she could not recall that.[467] Questioned, in effect, as to why she had deposed to a conversation of which she had no memory, Ms Brnjich said she was 'sticking to the fact that' her first affidavit was true and correct, and that she was very nervous.[468]
4. When cross-examined about the statement in her first affidavit that she did not know who 'the lady' making the statements at the wake had been, Ms Brnjich said that she knew it was Victoria on that day.[469] Ms Brnjich then said, in substance, that she had not known that when she prepared her first affidavit.
5. Questioned further, Ms Brnjich said that she did not know who the person making the statements was at the wake, and that it was after the event that she was told that it was Victoria making those statements.[470] Ms Brnjich then agreed that the only reason she knew that it had been Victoria making those statements was because she had been told by someone.[471] When she was asked who had told her that, she said that she did not know.[472] Asked to confirm that it was not Alison, Ms Brnjich said that she was going to say it was Alison.[473]
6. Ms Brnjich then gave evidence to the effect that, at the end of the day of the wake, she asked 'who was that lady', although she went on to say that she did not direct that question to anyone in particular.[474] Nor did Ms Brnjich say that she received an answer.
7. Ms Brnjich then confirmed that, at the time she heard the statements being made, she did not know at that point who the lady was.[475] Ms Brnjich was then taken to her second affidavit, in which she had deposed that she knew she was talking to Victoria, and asked whether she had been caught out, to which her answer was 'I don't recall'.[476]
8. At best, Ms Brnjich's evidence was confused. The inconsistencies between her two affidavits and her oral evidence were such that I am not prepared to accept her evidence unless it is corroborated by an independent witness or a contemporaneous document.
9. In coming to that view, I have had regard to Ms Brnjich's evidence that in her second affidavit, Ms Brnjich deposed to having attended the funeral 'along with the Rispoli family and their close friends'. Notwithstanding that it is to be expected that each of Alison, Rose‑Marie and Stephanie would know who attended their father's funeral, the persons forming the group of people of whom Victoria was one, on Ms Brnjich's first affidavit, were not identified, and were not called to give evidence at the trial. Nor, on Ms Brnjich's second affidavit, were the guests to whom Victoria was said to have repeated her statements identified or called to give evidence.
10. As noted, Alison called 19 witnesses in the proceedings. I would have expected one of the people to which Victoria is said to have made the statements attributed to her by Ms Brnjich to have been identified and called if Ms Brnjich's evidence was true. Nor did Alison, Rose‑Marie and Stephanie give evidence as to what Victoria was claimed to have said at the trial.
11. I am not satisfied that Victoria said anything at Robert's wake to the effect stated by Ms Brnjich.

1. Ms Wenn deposed[477] that she considered herself to be a long-term friend of Robert. She is a very close friend of Kerry.[478]
2. Her evidence was that she first met Robert around 1974 and met his wife Kerry soon thereafter. Ms Wenn's former husband and she would socialise with Robert and Kerry during the 1980s. She maintained a close relationship with Kerry and maintained a good friendship with Robert after their divorce, attending Robert's house for a cup of coffee on occasions as she was a real estate agent working in the Karrinyup area.
3. Ms Wenn's evidence was that each time she popped into Robert's house for a coffee he appeared to be living alone. She did not give the basis for that opinion in her affidavit. In cross‑examination, her evidence was that Robert appeared to be living alone in the 1980s and 1990s. [479]
4. Ms Wenn was obviously mistaken in her evidence referring to Robert living alone in the 1980s, when he was still married to Kerry. Her evidence that he was living alone in the 1990s fails to be considered in light of the evidence of the proceedings, and her evidence regarding her conversations with Robert regarding his will.
5. Ms Wenn said that around the middle of 2017 she bumped into Robert. In cross-examination she said that she had not seen Robert since about 2010.[480] Her evidence was that she asked Robert whether he was seeing someone and he emphatically denied doing so. Ms Wenn said that she asked Robert whether he lived in that big mansion all by himself, and Robert answered 'yes, no one is ever going to live with me, they will wreck the joint it is my prize possession'.
6. Her evidence was that Robert did not mention Victoria to her and she was under the impression he was not in a relationship.
7. Ms Wenn's evidence was that she visited Robert at his Karrinyup home on two or three more occasions between June 2000 and 18 October 2018. In cross-examination, Ms Wenn said she did not visit Robert at 11 Dwyer Street until the middle of 2018.[481]
8. She deposed that during her conversations with Robert after his separation from Kerry until 2018, Robert told her on at least six occasions:

He stored his will in his home safe with his valuables.

He was too tight to store his will at a bank.

This was many years after his divorce around the time he retired from his muffler shop. I remember as I would drop past his Karrinyup home more regularly in passing.

In October 2018, we chatted he mentioned his Australian Post Will Kit. Robert never gave me any reason to believe he would change his will as he loved his daughter very much.

He boasted how it [the will kit] only cost him $20 bucks.

1. In cross-examination, Ms Wenn said it could have been five, or it could have been seven, rather than 'at least six' occasions.[482] Her evidence was that Robert told Ms Wenn the same things on each occasion. Pressed on that, her evidence was that it was not the same thing each time, and that she could not say exactly what he had said each time.[483]
2. Asked when Robert spoke to her about the safe with the valuables, Ms Wenn's answer was that she could not go back on dates exactly.[484]
3. Ms Wenn confirmed in cross-examination that Robert had had a will prepared by lawyers[485] while he and Kerry were together, but conceded that she had no idea whether Robert had made a later will.[486] She accepted that Robert had told her that he had bought an Australia Post will kit for $20, but he did not tell her that he had done anything with that kit.[487] Ms Wenn accepted that she did not know whether Robert had made a new will or not.[488]
4. In the course of cross-examination, Ms Wenn revealed that she had a difficulty with her memory, which she described as 'brain fog'.[489]
5. Ms Wenn's evidence regarding her conversations with Robert is inconsistent with her response to a Facebook group message posted by Rose‑Marie following Robert's death. In that message, Rose‑Marie referred to Robert having died on 25 December 2018 and said:

We know he did not die intestate. Unfortunately his last will and testament has not been produced. Has anyone been entrusted with a copy of all knowledge of, so we can honour our father's wishes stop please contact me via PM: PLEASE SHARE.[490]

1. In response, Ms Wenn wrote the following message:

Rose.. I knew your Dad well enough to know there was no way in hell he never had a will. He was an accute businessman and would never had wanted his estate to go to any other parties .. only his own flesh and blood.. namely his daughters. He was still in touch with them ,.. as I know. He, I believe was not intestate. He was still their dad to him and the girls!!

1. Ms Wenn wrote another message to Rose-Marie as follows:

Rose I know other people who have also said how astute he was in regards to business. It just does not compute.[492]

1. Although she initially denied having responded to Rose‑Marie's request, Ms Wenn accepted that she had sent both messages when they were shown to her.[493] Ms Wenn was not re‑examined about them.
2. The text of those messages is inconsistent with Ms Wenn having any knowledge that Robert had made a will and where it was kept. They show Ms Wenn to be speculating about what Robert would have done. The text of each message is inconsistent with any knowledge about Robert's will on her part derived from speaking to him.
3. None of Ms Wenn, Alison, Rose-Marie or Stephanie gave evidence to the effect that Ms Wenn told any of the sisters of those conversations when they were attempting to locate a will. Rose‑Marie's original Facebook post is also inconsistent with Ms Wenn having told any of the sisters of her conversations with Robert at a time closer to the date of his death.
4. I find that she did not do so.
5. It is improbable, if Ms Wenn had the conversations with Robert to which she deposed in her affidavit, that she would not have told Rose‑Marie and her sisters of them when she received Rose‑Marie's Facebook post, particularly that Robert had made a will and that it was kept in the safe at the Dwyer Street house. Her failure to do so is inexplicable given Ms Wenn's level of support for the three sisters evident in the Facebook messages.
6. That failure is not explained by any memory difficulty Ms Wenn may have, as she swore her affidavit in May 2024.
7. I therefore reject Ms Wenn's evidence of her conversations with Robert over the period between his separation from Kerry and 2018 to the effect that he had a will, and that it was kept in the safe at Karrinyup. There does not appear to me to be any way to reconcile Ms Wenn's evidence of those conversations with her Facebook posts consistent with a genuine mistake on her part.
8. Although that does not necessarily require that the whole of Ms Wenn's evidence be rejected, the balance of her evidence requires careful scrutiny. I therefore do not accept Ms Wenn's evidence except where it is corroborated by an independent witness or a contemporaneous document.

1. Ms Duffy deposed[494] that she was very close to Alison, Rose‑Marie and Stephanie. She is a very close friend of their mother Kerry.[495]
2. Her evidence was that she would see Robert for 30 minutes or so at least three of four times a year on average until Robert's death, at the Dwyer Street house. She did not see anyone else there. She considered that nothing had changed at the house from the time Robert and Kerry Rispoli had been married.
3. Although her affidavit suggested that Ms Duffy had been upstairs at Dwyer Street,[496] in cross-examination Ms Duffy said that she had only ever entered through the front door and into the kitchen.[497] She had not gone right through the house, she had never been in the bedroom..[498] She said that there was no carpet in any of the rooms, there being 'tiles all downstairs'.[499]
4. She had been to the Dwyer Street house maybe a dozen times in total. After Robert's divorce, she had gone inside the house no more than a couple of times, over all the years, and remained downstairs when she did.[500]
5. Ms Duffy's affidavit therefore exaggerated her knowledge of the state of the house.
6. Ms Duffy visited the house during the daytime.[501] Her evidence was that Robert flirted with her on every occasion she saw him, but that she knew it was always in jest and a joke. She did not take him seriously. She described him as a flirt and a womaniser.[502]
7. Ms Duffy deposed that, on a date she could not recall but around 2011 or 2012, she saw Robert at the Dwyer Street house. They then had a conversation in the garage, in which Ms Duffy told Robert that her ex‑husband had done the right thing by his children and left everything to them in equal shares in his will.
8. Robert is said to have responded 'I am going to do the same thing, and the girls are my legacy, they are everything I have got'. Ms Duffy then said that she had warned her ex-husband about getting a girlfriend who will take half his money and that Robert should be careful of doing the same thing. Robert is said to have responded to the effect that 'there will definitely never ever be another woman living with me'.
9. In cross-examination, Ms Duffy accepted that she could not recall the year in which the conversation took place, and that it might have been prior to 2011 or 2012. She did not know when the conversation occurred other than it was after Kerry left, [503] but accepted that it might have been in 2007.[504] Her evidence regarding the conversation included:

And he would never have used the word 'legacy', would he have?---Well, he did use the word 'legacy'.

He used the word 'legacy'?---Yes. He did. He did.

What exactly did he say?---He just said - we were talking about wills, and I said that Ray had done the right thing by my two children, that they were left everything.

Yes?---And he said:

My girls are my legacy.

And he said:

And I will leave - and everything is to them too.

So he did say that word.

1. Ms Duffy's evidence was that her ex-husband died on 9 March 2010. On that basis, her conversation with Robert must have taken place after that date, since she spoke of what her ex-husband had left to his children in the past tense.
2. Accepting that evidence on its face, Robert had not made a will as at the time of that conversation, because he was speaking of what he would do in the future, rather than of some will he had made in the past.
3. Ms Duffy's evidence is that Robert told her that 'there will definitely never ever be another woman living with me'. I have found that Victoria and Robert were living in a de facto relationship from sometime in 1998. In context, Robert's statement can be understood to mean that he would never live with a woman other than Victoria. Alternatively, Robert simply did not tell Ms Duffy about his relationship.
4. In cross-examination, Ms Duffy accepted that Robert had not told her that he had declared that Victoria was his de facto in his tax returns, that she had been on his private health insurance for 15 years, and that he had signed other documents referring to her as his partner. While it is unsurprising that Robert did not tell Ms Duffy any of those things, Ms Duffy's evidence was that he never mentioned Victoria to her.[505]
5. The assessment of Ms Duffy's evidence is complicated by the fact that Ms Duffy did not differentiate between things she knew of her knowledge and what she had been told by others in giving evidence. An example was Ms Duffy's evidence that Alison and Robert used to meet with Chum Taylor, who she said was a friend of hers (i.e. Ms Duffy). Asked how she knew that, Ms Duffy eventually said that Alison would have told her that ages ago.[506] Ms Duffy then volunteered that Chum Taylor had witnessed Robert's will, following which Ms Duffy gave the following evidence:

Who's Chum Taylor?---He's a friend of ours.

Who is he?---He's a champion speedway rider, and he was Robert's - one of Robert's very best friends.

He's a champion speedway rider?---Yes, and he was Robert's very best friend.

Yes?---And he witnessed Robert's will.

You were there, were you?---Yes. I heard about that.

No?---Well, I was told that.

By Alison again?---No, not by Alison.

By somebody else; I see?---Not by Alison.

So what will are you talking about?---I hardly ever see Alison.

What will are you talking about?---Well, when him and Kerry had a will - had their wills done.

So that's when Chum Taylor witnessed it, did he?---Chum Taylor has been in - was in their life for a long, long time.

So Chum Taylor witnessed the will when Kerry and he made wills together?---Well - - -

Is that what you're saying?---Maybe, that's what the will was, then.

You're just guessing. Speculation?---No, I'm not guessing.

You don't know these things from your own - - -?---I do know.

From your - - -?---I know what I've said to Robert, and I know what Robert said to me.

And that's all you can tell us?---That's - exactly.

So, then, don't tell us things that you don't know from your own personal knowledge?---I'm telling you what he said to me and what I - what I do know from other people.

...

Well, who told you, then, about - that Chum Taylor witnessed his will? Who told you that?---Well, I - well - - -

Who?---It could have been his son, Glen Taylor, that may have told me that, 'Dad took' - 'Dad went with Robert.'

Do you know that or you just - - -?---No, I don't know. I don't know. I'm just knowing that Ali was very close with her dad and Rose-Marie and - and Stephanie. They - he had a good relationship with the three of them.[507]

1. Ms Duffy presented as an honest witness, who attempted to answer questions asked of her without prevarication, but her lack of recollection as to dates, and her evidence about Chum Taylor having witnessed Robert's will, requires that her evidence be closely scrutinised before it could be accepted.
2. Ultimately, however, Ms Duffy's evidence is of little assistance in resolving the question whether Robert made a will in 2008. Her evidence is inconsistent with his having done so, because the conversation with him she related likely occurred after the death of her ex‑husband in 2010, and on her evidence Robert had not made a will at that time.

1. Kerry was Robert's ex-wife.
2. She deposed[508] that she and Robert had 'mirror' wills prepared by a solicitor in around 1972, which were amended by a codicil after Stephanie was born in 1987. Her evidence was that she and Robert spent 'a lot of money' on their wills.
3. Kerry and Robert were divorced on 6 May 1998. Prior to that date, she demanded Robert return her will, which was in his possession. He instead gave her a key to the safe at Dwyer Street.
4. Kerry's evidence is that she never returned to the Dwyer Street property after their separation. She made a new will in 1995 after having asked for her will and not having received it. Kerry deposed that she did not tell Robert to destroy the will he held for her.
5. Her evidence was that Robert asked her in around June 2008 for the correct spelling of his daughters' full names, including their middle names, and told her that he was getting his paperwork and life in order. He did not say he was preparing a will. Kerry said that Robert had battled with literacy because he left school at a very young age to begin work.
6. Her unprompted evidence in cross-examination was that she thought that Robert meant a 'trust or something' when he told her he was getting his life in order,[509] which was inconsistent with her affidavit to the effect that she had understood him to mean that he was preparing a will.[510]
7. In cross‑examination, Kerry referred to putting her new will 'into play', which she would only do if she had to do so,[511] by which I understood to imply that she intended not to disclose she had made a new will if she could take under Robert's mirror will. Questioned as to whether Kerry had any care about her original will after she had made a new will in 1995, Kerry said that she did, because it was 'our family history'.[512]
8. Asked in cross-examination if Robert only had to open the safe and take out the will and codicil in order to ascertain his daughters' full names, Kerry agreed, but said that Robert had chosen not to do that.[513] Asked why he needed the children's dates of birth, Kerry's evidence was that, obviously, like most men, he did not know them.[514]
9. It is improbable, in my view, that a father would not know the names of his children or their birthdays, but Kerry's evidence suggests that Robert's relationship with his daughters was not as close as the sisters sought to make out.
10. Her evidence was that she had little to do with Robert after he ceased picking Stephanie up from her house.
11. Kerry was an aggressive and combative witness. She claimed not to know Victoria's name, although she knew both Victoria's maiden and married surnames.[515]
12. Kerry swore a statutory declaration in support of Stephanie's application to have Robert's death certificate changed, in which she stated the approval of Robert's draft death certificate by Victoria's daughter was 'outrageous and unconscionable'. She did so without having seen the attachments to that declaration, which were referred to in the text of the document.[516]
13. In cross-examination, Kerry characterised how Robert's death certificate was issued as 'the plaintiff's daughter [having] taken it upon herself to - to falsify a death certificate on my children's father'. For the reasons addressed below, I find that there was and is no proper basis for that view.
14. Kerry was cross-examined on her affidavit sworn 3 March 2023, in which she had stated that she 'knew at the time the Plaintiff lived at 110 Matlock Street, Mount Hawthorn, as I have friends who live in that vicinity who are friends with the Plaintiff and know where she resides'.
15. When Kerry was asked to identify who those people were, she said: 'it was a girl that - her grandmother and - friends with her grandmother'. She was unable to name any of them.[517]
16. Kerry said that she also knew someone else who lived close by, being Ros Italiano.[518] As will be seen, Ms Italiano did not know where Victoria lived.
17. Kerry did not know that, as late as 2017, Robert had listed Victoria in his tax returns as his de facto spouse, but did not think it was true.[519]
18. Asked whether she knew Robert had Victoria listed on his private medical insurance for 15 years, Kerry's answer, as with each of her daughters, was that Robert would do anything to get something cheaper, and she guessed that was one way of doing it.[520]
19. There was no evidence to suggest that health insurance cover for two people was cheaper than for one. Moreover, the proposition is counter‑intuitive, such that I would not accept it unless demonstrated by evidence to be true. On the evidence, I find that Kerry, as with each of Alison, Rose-Marie, Stephanie, gave that explanation in an attempt to avoid the court drawing the obvious inference that Victoria was in a de facto relationship with Robert, and to diminish the nature of their relationship.
20. In a number of instances, Kerry made statements upon oath with no proper foundation for them or which exaggerated the state of her knowledge. Her evidence was, in general, partisan. I would not accept Kerry's evidence unless it was corroborated by a contemporaneous document or an independent witness.

1. Lisa Sciano was Robert's cousin, although substantially younger than him. She is closer in age to Alison, Rose-Marie and Stephanie.
2. Ms Sciano deposed[521] that she visited Robert's house in Karrinyup every couple of months, and that Robert lived alone. She and Robert had many conversations about estates and finances, although she did not state why that was so, or when she had those conversations. She said that she asked Robert 'why don't you sell everything and give it to the girls while you're alive?'
3. Ms Sciano said that Robert did not mention 'Vicky' nor did she ever see Robert with 'Vicky' socially or at any of our family events. Her understanding was that Robert was not in a relationship following his divorce.
4. Her evidence is that Robert told her 'I've recently updated my will since aunty Kerry and I divorced and everything is left to my 3 daughters equally.' She did not depose when that conversation occurred in her affidavit.
5. In cross-examination, Ms Sciano was asked if after Kerry and Robert had split up, she hardly ever went to Karrinyup, to which she responded 'it was on and off'. When it was suggested to her that she might visit the house every other year or so, her evidence was that she might visit two or three times a year,[522] and subsequently three or four times a year.[523]
6. Her evidence that Robert lived alone was based on her not having seen anything that a woman would have fixed up at the house,[524] and 'because he was a flirt'.[525] She had not seen the bedroom at the house.[526] She 'would know by the clothes on the clothesline',[527] although Ms Sciano did not give any evidence as to having seen any clothes on the clothesline. Ms Sciano thought Robert lived alone because Kerry was the love of his life and if he had wanted to be with someone, he would have married them.[528]
7. Questioned about her evidence regarding discussing estates with Robert, Ms Sciano said that she had told him 'Don't worry about your will' and to 'sell everything up and give it to his girls'.[529] When then asked if she had said 'don't worry about your will', Ms Sciano said that she had not said that, she had said 'Don't worry about the future. ... Just give it to your girls now'.[530]
8. Ms Sciano was unable to remember the year in which Robert had told her that he had recently updated his will.[531] At one point Ms Sciano said it would have been in 2015, but at another she said it would have been before 2010.[532] Nor could she recall where she had that conversation.[533] She did not specify when she had the conversation or conversations regarding Robert giving everything to his daughters.
9. When told that Robert had listed Victoria as his de facto in his tax returns Ms Sciano's response was 'that could be a scam'. Her evidence was that she was basing that response on what she knew of Robert. When told that there were other documents listing Victoria as Robert's partner or as living at Dwyer Street, her evidence was that she could only assume that he did that for monetary reasons. She went on to say that she did not think 'he would ever leave anything or be with anybody or want to be because he had a family. He always thought Aunty Kerry was his family and his girls.'[534]
10. Ms Sciano was an honest witness. She attempted to answer questions to the best of her ability.
11. Examined critically, however, her opinion that Robert lived alone is without any foundation, based on it was on her view as to how his house should have appeared, in circumstances where she had not seen the whole of the house, and her opinion of Robert's character. With due respect to Ms Sciano, her reasons for discounting the documents evidencing that Robert had listed Victoria as a partner or as living at Dwyer Street also do not withstand examination.
12. As to Ms Sciano's evidence regarding the conversations she had with Robert about a will, the first is of no relevance, since it concerned Ms Sciano seeking to convince Robert to make an inter vivos gift to his daughters.
13. As to the second, Ms Sciano was unable to identify when the conversation took place, even by reference to a particular year, and could not remember where the conversation occurred. Alison seeks to establish that Robert made a will in 2008. In those circumstances, I regard Ms Sciano's evidence as having limited probative value on that issue, although I do not discount it entirely.

1. Ms Italiano deposed[535] that she has known and has been a friend of each of Alison, Rose-Marie and Stephanie for a long time. She has been a friend of the Rispoli family for probably 60 years.
2. Ms Italiano's evidence was that she met Victoria in 2005, when she went shopping at Sussan's Perth store. She deposed that in 2005 Victoria entered her details in the Sussan's computer and said that she (Victoria) lived right around the corner from Ms Italiano. In cross‑examination, it became clear that her evidence was that Victoria only said to her that she lived around the corner from her 'after many visits'..[536] Ms Italiano then said it would have been 'maybe the third, fourth occasion'.[537]
3. Her evidence was that over the years she and Victoria got to know each other when Ms Italiano went to the Sussan's stores in Perth City and Subiaco. In cross-examination, Ms Italiano said that she used to visit the Perth store three times a week. Her evidence was that, on more than one occasion, Victoria said that 'we should catch up at my place, given we live so close to each other'.
4. Ms Italiano did not identify when those conversations occurred.
5. There was no evidence as to where Ms Italiano lived in 2005,[538] or as at the other times she claims to have met Victoria, other than an entry in the Sussan's computer system relating to Ms Italiano made in 2020 recording her address as being the same as that stated in her affidavit sworn 23 August 2024.
6. Ms Italiano did not know where Victoria lived. There is no suggestion that they met for coffee as Victoria is said to have suggested. Ms Italiano did not explain why that had not occurred.
7. In cross-examination, Ms Italiano's evidence was that Victoria told her that she lived just around the corner from her 'after many visits', and then 'the third, fourth occasion'.[539] Both answers were inconsistent with her affidavit. Ms Italiano was unable to explain why Sussan's records show her having become a member of that store in 2020, but I do not place any weight on her inability to do so, since it involves the records of a third party.
8. Victoria recalled meeting Ms Italiano in Sussan's Hay Street Mall store, but did not recall the year in which they met. Victoria denied in her affidavit sworn 13 September 2024 affidavit ever having a conversation with Ms Italiano to the effect claimed by her.[540] She deposed that she was living with Robert in 2005 and her unit in Joondanna was rented, so that she was not living 'just around the corner', as Ms Italiano stated. Victoria's tax returns are consistent with her property having been rented in 2005.
9. Victoria was not cross-examined on her interactions with Ms Italiano.
10. Ms Italiano presented as an honest witness. She answered the questions put to her in cross-examination without prevarication or delay. However, as Victoria was not cross-examined as to the substance of Ms Italiano's evidence, I am unable to determine whether her evidence should be preferred to that of Victoria.
11. Ultimately, in the absence of evidence as to where Ms Italiano lived in 2005, her evidence is of little relevance. Moreover, the issue for determination is whether Victoria was in a de facto relationship with Robert in the two years leading to his death. Ms Italiano's evidence does not assist in that determination, since it relates to 2005, a point in time well before the relevant period.

1. Mr Sigismondi's evidence was that he has known Alison since 2006 and that he and Alison spent time together nearly every Saturday at one of two cafes in Leederville. On most occasions when he met Alison, she would be with Robert and Chum Taylor, and he would sometimes sit and speak with Alison and Robert.
2. It always appeared to him that Robert and Alison had a friendly, loving relationship.
3. He did not see Robert with anyone else other than a friend having coffee.[541]
4. Mr Sigismondi's evidence was that 'in all his interactions with Robert', which he did not disclose, Robert did not refer to having a partner. On Mr Sigismondi's evidence, there would be no reason to think Robert might do so.
5. He does not know Victoria.
6. I accept Mr Sigismondi was an honest witness, but his evidence is of no assistance in the determination of the issues in these proceedings.

1. Marie was Robert's niece. She accepted that she is very close with her cousins, Alison, Rose-Marie and Stephanie.[542]
2. She deposed that Robert offered her advice in early to mid-2005 on her father's estate, which led to a conversation in which Robert said:[543]

'I have my original will done with your Aunty Kerry in my safe at home.'

I believed Uncle Rob to be talking about 11 Dwyer Street, Karrinyup as this was the home he lived in.

'If anything ever happens to me or Aunty Kerry everything goes to my three girls.'

1. Marie deposed to a second conversation with Robert around 12 months after her grandfather died, as follows:[544]

Uncle Rob said 'I'm going to get my will re-done, make sure everything is done properly. I want everything to go to my three girls.'

Uncle Rob said 'I'm going to get one of those post office wills.'

I laughed at Uncle Rob as I thought he was joking, I said 'What?'

He said 'Don't worry, I know what I'm doing.'

1. Although it was stated in the tramlines of Marie's affidavit that it had been prepared by Alison's solicitors, Marie's evidence was that she had typed her affidavit herself, at home. Paragraph 2 of her affidavit stated:

I swear this affidavit in response to the Family Provision Act claim made by Victoria.

1. Marie was unable to provide a coherent explanation as to why her affidavit referred to a Family Provision Act claim. She said that what she wrote 'was done by the lawyer',[545] although she also said that the lawyer did not prepare something for her,[546] she 'got [her] statement',[547] and no one had helped her with the affidavit. She also said that it was her opinion that the proceedings comprised a Family Provision Act claim, because they were to do with an estate.[548]
2. She was not 100% sure what was Victoria's claim.[549]
3. Although not stated in her affidavit, Marie's evidence was that her grandfather died in 2005.[550] Her evidence was that she remembered the exact words Robert used, 18 years after they were spoken, because she had found what he said amusing.[551] When asked to explain why that was so, her evidence was that Robert was tight with his money. Asked to explain how she knew Robert would not spend money on a will, she repeated that Robert was tight with money.[552]
4. Marie accepted in cross-examination that she had no idea whether Robert had his will re-done, as he said.[553]
5. Her evidence was that Robert had brought Victoria to a couple of family dinners at her grandparents' house, and that Robert said to her, on one occasion, that Victoria 'does the cleaning'. In cross‑examination, she stated that she knew the nature of Robert's and Victoria's relationship based on what Robert told her, being limited to that one occasion,[554] and because she did not see them exhibit intimacy in public.[555]
6. Marie did not ever see Robert and Victoria at the Dwyer Street property. She accepted that she never saw how they spent their lives together.[556]
7. Marie accepted that Robert's mother was nice to Victoria on the two occasions she saw Victoria at family dinners at her grandparents' house.
8. Marie was not aware that Robert had signed a document in 2017 that stated that Victoria's residential address was 11 Dwyer Street,[557] that Robert had referred to Victoria as his de facto partner and that Victoria had been listed on his private medical funds for at least 15 years.[558]
9. She accepted that Robert would know better than her the kind of relationship he had with Victoria.[559]
10. Having been shown a number of the obituary notices published by members of her family, Marie maintained that it was her position that Victoria was simply a friend of Robert at the time of his death.[560]
11. In my assessment, the uncertainty surrounding the manner in which her affidavit was prepared calls the veracity of her evidence into question. Further, in my assessment Marie demonstrated that she was partisan in her characterisation of Robert's relationship with Victoria, given her refusal to reconsider her opinions in the light of further information. I find that her evidence as to their relationship is of limited assistance.
12. Marie's evidence directed to the question as to whether Robert made a will falls to be considered in the light of my finding that Marie was a partisan witness, but that finding does not ultimately impact upon my assessment of that aspect of her evidence.
13. The conversation to which Marie deposed occurred with Robert in 2005 is of little, if any, relevance, since it concerned the will Robert had made when still married to Kerry.
14. Marie's evidence of the second conversation with Robert in about 2006, assuming that she correctly recalled it 18 years after the event as she claimed, was equivocal. On the face of it, Robert made inconsistent statements, more than two years before it is alleged that he made the will Alison seeks to prove in the counterclaim, that he would get his will re-done, to 'make sure that everything is done properly', while simultaneously saying that he would get a post office will. The first statement strongly suggests that Robert would see a lawyer regarding his will, while the second does not.
15. As Marie did not know whether Robert acted on either statement, her evidence is of little relevance to the determination of the question whether Robert made a will in the terms alleged in mid-2008.

1. Mr Dye met Robert in 1988 while working as an apprentice mechanic at the Ian Leslie BMW dealership in Osborne Park.
2. He knows Alison well. He sees her regularly.
3. When the dealership changed owners and moved to Victoria Park, Mr Dye did not see Robert as much, but they kept in touch, normally by telephone.
4. In around 2002, Mr Dye saw Robert more frequently. During the late 1990s and early 2000s he would see Robert at Robert's business almost daily from Monday to Friday, and at any time of the day. He would occasionally see Robert for a friend's repair at Robert's business.
5. In or around 2012 or 2013, Mr Dye would occasionally see Robert following Robert's semi-retirement.
6. Mr Dye accepted that he did not know much about Robert's personal life. He did not ever go to Robert's home.
7. Mr Dye's evidence is that in all the time he knew Robert, Robert never mentioned Victoria or anything about being in a relationship to Mr Dye.
8. I accept Mr Dye's evidence as truthful, though of limited relevance.

1. Robert was Ms Smith's uncle. She is the cousin of Alison, Rose‑Marie and Stephanie, with whom she was very close growing up.
2. Ms Smith was approximately 25 years of age when Robert divorced Kerry.
3. Ms Smith gave evidence that the contents of her affidavit sworn 9 October 2023, after certain deletions, were still true and correct, and her affidavit was tendered on that basis.
4. As Ms Smith's evidence is of central importance to the counterclaim, I set out her affidavit evidence as to what occurred in full:

In or around June 2008, I recall an occasion when I ran into Uncle Robert in Leederville.

I know it was around this time in 2008 because on that day I was interviewing for a new job at Broadway Dry Cleaners in Leederville. I had given birth to my youngest daughter, Caitlin, in 2006 and worked on a casual basis after her birth. However, my job interview for Broadway Dry Cleaners was for a 'full-time' job.

On this day, I recall that I had to drop my kids at their daycare centre on Turon Street in Morley, before I went to my job interview. My partner at the time who was a truck driver needed to use my car that day. I cannot recall exactly who drove that day, but I remember dropping my kids at their daycare centre and then going to the train station so that I could get to my job interview while my partner used the car.

My job interview at Broadway Dry Cleaners was mid-morning, although I do not recall the exact time. After catching the train to the Leederville Train Station, I walked from the Leederville Train Station up Oxford Street to the Broadway Dry Cleaners which was located on Oxford Street but much closer to the Scarborough Beach Road end.

The interview did not take very long. After the interview, I walked back to the Leederville Train Station along Oxford Street. I saw Uncle Robert sitting at a coffee shop with John White and Chum Taylor on the right side of Oxford Street as I was walking south towards the Leederville Train Station.

I had met John White before and knew who Chum Taylor was.

...

When I first walked up to the table at the cafe, I had a joke with Uncle Robert as I usually did. I asked him what he was doing, and he said he was doing business. I laughed and said something to the effect of- 'drinking coffee doesn't look like business to me'. He told me that he had just been with his accountant and that the 'little ding' had walked back up the road. I understood the 'little ding' to be a reference to his accountant, John Palermo, who I believe is of Italian descent. Uncle Robert had frequently referred to his accountant, John, in that manner in front of me.

On the cafe table that Uncle Robert was sitting at was a document open in front of him. It was not being held by anyone. While it was open on the table, I had the chance to look at it. I immediately recognised it to be an Australia Post will. I knew it was a will because I had seen my grandparents' will and my Uncle Keith's will and it looked the same. When I first saw the will on the table, it was folded out to the full extent so that I could see everything on the first long page of the will.

Once when I was growing up, I helped my mum fill out Uncle Keith's will. I misspelled his name 'Kieth' instead of 'Keith', and Mum told me I had messed it up and she would have to go and get a new will from the post office.

The reason why I started looking at the will was because I wanted to make a joke to Uncle Robert about why he had left me out. While I was reading the will, I saw:

(a) the first section, which said the name 'Biagio Robert Rispoli' written;

(b) the second section, which had the name John White written;

(c) a blank part underneath the word 'Gifts' or some words similar to that; and

(d) at the bottom of the first page, the words 'in equal parts' and the three names of my cousins, Rose-Marie Rispoli, Alison Rispoli and Stephanie Rispoli. I believe their middle names were also written, although I do not recall these off the top of my head.

It was a windy day. The pages of the will were blowing back and forth while the will was on the table. At one stage the long page blew over to the other side and I saw:

(a) the witness section of the will;

(b) the name Charles Taylor and a signature next to it; and

(c) the name 'Palermo' and a signature next to it.

I knew Palermo to be Uncle Robert's accountant, who I had just been told by Uncle Robert had headed back up the road to his office.

...

I said to Chum, 'is your real name Charles?'. He said something to the effect that, yes, I thought you would know that. I said something like, 'No, I know you as Chum'.

At some point, I said to Uncle Robert jokingly, words to the effect that 'you've forgotten your favourite niece'. I recall Uncle Robert saying something to the effect that everything was being left to his daughters and that Aunty Kerry wouldn't be getting any more money out of him.

The conversation took about 10 to 15 minutes. I was not in a hurry to get anywhere as my kids didn't need to be picked up from daycare until later that day. At some point during the conversation about the will, Uncle Robert said something like 'John's the boss when I'm gone'. I had seen his name as executor on the will.

I did not see the name Victoria Varelis anywhere on the document.

1. Ms Smith also deposed that, after she had given instructions for the preparation of her affidavit, she was shown a copy of an 'Australia Post Will Kit', which 'looked very similar to Uncle Robert's, although [Ms Smith] could not say for certain that it was identical'.
2. Her evidence was that Robert would frequently say to her 'over the years following his divorce' that he would never get another woman in his life and that he would stay single until the day he died. Ms Smith stated that not once did Robert mention Victoria's name to her or tell her that he was seeing someone other than Kerry.
3. She did not recall visiting the Dwyer Street property as an adult.
4. As can be seen, Ms Smith did not depose to having seen Robert's signature on the will she claimed to have seen in around June 2008, but stated that both the names 'Charles Taylor' and 'Palermo' appeared on the reverse of the will. In each case, a signature was present next to those two names.
5. Ms Smith did not suggest that she saw any statement in the document to the effect that it revoked all previous testamentary dispositions by Robert.
6. In cross-examination, Ms Smith gave evidence that, when she came up to the table, she stood opposite Robert, with 'Chum' Taylor on her right and John White to her left.[561] She did not sit down at the table at any stage.[562]
7. Ms Smith knew John White, because he had been married to her cousin Rose-Marie. Ms Smith had not met 'Chum' Taylor before that day, but she recognised him from having attended the Claremont Speedway when she was younger.
8. Her evidence in cross-examination was that there was a booklet on the table, which was open.[563] The 'middle long page' was hanging out. The wind was blowing and 'it [the long page] was going backwards and forwards'. [564]
9. That page was pointing toward 'Chum Taylor' to her right,[565] so that, on her evidence, Ms Smith must have been standing nearly perpendicular to any text on that page and its reverse.
10. Ms Smith agreed that she had no reason to read the will.[566] Her stated reason for doing so was so she could make a joke with Robert about her name not being in the will, although Ms Smith knew that her name would not be there, without needing to read it.[567]
11. The wind was just enough to make the pages flip, but not from one side to the other. Instead, the long page was stood up by the wind.[568]
12. The wind was blowing the page back and forth, so that the page flipped between John White and Chum Taylor[569] a 'few times'.[570]
13. Ms Smith estimated that went on for a minute or two.[571]
14. Ms Smith's evidence was that she then said 'I hope my name is in there' to Robert, and Robert then shut the will.[572]
15. She said that Robert's first and middle names and surnames were on the will, but she could not remember his middle name. Ms Smith saw John White's name on the will, but did not read what heading was next to it. Her reason for stating that John White was named as executor was 'why else would he be in the will?'[573]
16. Her affidavit evidence was that she could not recall the sisters' middle names, but she was able to do so at the trial. She explained that was because she probably did not remember them on the day her affidavit was prepared, because she had just come from work.[574]
17. When pressed for details of what she had seen, on a number of occasions Ms Smith sought to minimise the extent to which she had read the will, claiming not to have 'studied' the will,[575] having a 'rough idea' of what she had seen,[576] and to have 'only looked at the bits that made any sense to me and, like, interested ,me' she supposed.[577] She did not know whether anything was written under the heading 'Residue of my Estate'[578] and did not read anything about funeral directions[579] or organ donation.[580]
18. Ms Smith stated for the first time in cross-examination that she had seen that Robert had signed the will.[581] Her explanation for not having included that in her affidavit was that she 'didn't really need to be saying anything about that'.[582] Pressed on the point, Ms Smith did not know why she had not mentioned Robert had signed the will,[583] and asserted that 'the lawyers never even asked' her about that.[584]
19. In cross-examination, her evidence was as follows:

And who else was at the table?---No one. One of the - as I walked down there, a youngish, sort of - older than me, Italian bloke walked back the other way. I seen them say goodbye as I walked past them. I said, 'Hey', you know, as I - -

There was - - -?--- - - - walked past.

- - - somebody else walking past?---Walking away from the table, as I walked down the street.

Yes?---I noticed Uncle Robert. And then I walked past a little young fellow. He was not young. He was younger than my uncle. But I walked past him and because he left the table, I looked at him. And I thought I recognised him. And I said, 'Hey.'

So - - -?---And he said - - -

So somebody - - -?--- - - - hello - - -

Else - - -?--- - - - back.

You saw somebody else at the table, but then they walked away. Is that - - -?---I seen somebody else leaving the table. He had already stood up.

Yes?---And he was walking away. I was coming from the lights.

And why don't you say that in your affidavit?---Because he wasn't sitting at the table.

Okay?---When I walked up and spoke to Uncle Robert and John

Yes?--- - - - he wasn't sitting there.

1. Ms Smith did not initially identify Mr Palermo as the 'youngish, sort of - older than me, Italian bloke' who walked past her in the street, but did so later in her cross-examination. She did not know why she had not given his name when first giving evidence about that person.[585]
2. Ms Smith's evidence was that she knew Mr Palermo from having seen him at Robert's workshop[586] when she called in there. She said that he and Robert had paperwork, that she presumed that they 'were doing paperwork and stuff', and that 'he (by which I understood Ms Smith to mean Robert) introduced her to' Mr Palermo.[587]
3. Later, in her cross-examination, Ms Smith said:

And it's correct, isn't it, that when you saw the witness section of the will, you didn't see the name Palermo. You only saw the signature?‑‑‑You are saying that. But I knew who he was, so I presumed that was Palermo.

Okay. So you presumed the signature you saw was Palermo?---Well, he just walked off.

Okay. So you made an assumption, because you had seen someone who Robert had referred to as the Little Ding, walk off, that he had signed this will?---Yes. They were sitting all there together when I came across the lights.

They weren't signing it - - -?---And then he got up.

- - - at that stage, were they?---Palermo was putting the pen away. He was doing stuff, putting shit back in his bag. Then, he stood up to walk off, and he done his see-you-laters, walked down the street. I have crossed the road. I could see them from the opposite side of the road. He was standing up, doing his bits and pieces. As I have come across the road, he has walked down. We have passed, I don't know, a couple hundred metres down the road.

So you didn't - - -?---And I said hello to him.

You didn't see Palermo sign this will, did you?---I didn't see anyone sign it.

That is right. So by the time you got there, you saw a signature, you say?---Yes.

And you assumed that was John Palermo's signature?---It looked like Palermo from where I was standing.

But it could have been something else. Because he said he has no recollection of witnessing it?---He - what?

He has given evidence in this court that he has no recollection of ever witnessing this will?---Well, I don't know about any of that. I wasn't here. I wouldn't be able to tell you that. I haven't seen this man in years.

I am telling you that is what he said. So I am asking you, - -?---He was there that day. He was with Uncle Robert that day.

But you can't be certain?---And he was also over at the workshop a fair bit. When I called in, I seen him maybe three times. And when I used to drive past Leederville, that coffee shop, him and Uncle Robert used to be having coffees.

Ms Smith, just listen to the question if you would, please. You can't be certain that that was his signature on the will, can you?---From what I recognise, no. I cannot be absolutely totally certain because no, I did not see him sign it.

And - - -?---But I - - -

And you didn't see his name printed next to it either, did you?---I seen Palermo. That is all I recognised.

On the signature or some - - -?---Signature. Palermo. Okay?---That is what I read when I was looking at it.

COBBY J: Ms Smith, you just said that you had passed Mr Palermo a couple of hundred metres down from the coffee shop. Is that right?‑‑‑Yes. He had got up from the table and was walking back towards whatever that - Fitzgerald Street, is it? He - the cross street where the lights are. I had crossed over. And I was walking down. I noticed him from back on the other side.

So you - - -?---As I walked over, then, I got down the road. And I was oh yeah, it is them, you know, sort of watching.

So he was several hundred metres away - - -?---And he got up and left.

- - - from the coffee table, was he?---I wouldn't know if you would call it a couple of hundred metres. I am not good with distance. But we crossed paths. And then, I continued on down to where Uncle Robert was. But he stood up from the table. As I had crossed over the road, he was standing up and walked back past me.

When the two of you passed each other, how far away were you from the coffee table?---I don't know if you would call it three hundred metres.

HERSHOWITZ, MR: Maybe 100 metres?---Probably about five or six shops away from where he was, not even, I suppose. It was like from the corner to there. It wouldn't even be - - -

COBBY J: How did you see him put a pen away?---Pardon?

How did you see him put a pen away?---He was standing up and fussing around with stuff. And he had a bag. And he was putting stuff in it.

You don't see a pen?---Well, it looked like he had something in his hand that he was putting in the bag. I can't tell you for sure it was a pen. It could have been anything else.

It could have been - - -?---But he had something in his hand that he was putting away as I looked down the road. That is what made me notice him because he stood up.

1. Ms Smith's evidence was that Mr Palermo had left the table and was walking toward her, while she was walking toward the table. It follows that Ms Smith was further away than the five or six shopfronts, or the 100m, 200m or 300m from the table at which Robert, John White and Mr Taylor were sitting, when she claims to have seen Mr Palermo put a pen or something else into his bag.
2. I find Ms Smith's evidence that she saw Mr Palermo place a pen in his bag from that distance, and it was that which caught her notice, implausible.
3. Further, in cross-examination, Ms Smith's evidence was that after Robert divorced Kerry, she did not see a lot of the sisters and Robert because she had her own kids and worked full time.[588] She said that she would see Robert more frequently than the sisters because, when she was working for the dry cleaners, she would drop in when she went past his shop.[589] As, on her evidence, she saw Mr Palermo at the coffee shop with Robert, John White and Mr Taylor on the day she was interviewed for a job with the dry cleaners, her claim to have identified Mr Palermo that day as a result of having seen him at the workshop 'maybe three times' is unlikely, there being no suggestion that the time Ms Smith claimed to have been introduced to Mr Palermo was not one of those three occasions.
4. That calls into question the reliability of Ms Smith's evidence that she had seen Mr Palermo at Robert's business several times prior to seeing him at the coffee table.
5. The alternative, that Ms Smith was coincidentally introduced to Mr Palermo by Robert prior to her interview with the dry cleaners in around June 2008, was not the effect of her evidence, and given Ms Smith's evidence about her commitments prior to working at the dry cleaners, unlikely.
6. Ms Smith's evidence as to having seen Mr Palermo get up and leave the coffee table at which Robert, John White and Mr Taylor for the first time in cross-examination raises further questions regarding Ms Smith's reliability and credibility. Prior to her cross-examination, Ms Smith's evidence was that she had been told by Robert that Mr Palermo had been with him. In cross-examination, her evidence became not only had she seen Mr Palermo, but she had also previously been introduced to him by Robert and had spoken to Mr Palermo that day.
7. None of that was put to Mr Palermo.
8. Further, Alison's written opening submissions stated that Alison was 'unable to lead any direct evidence concerning the due execution of the Will',[590] and that the reference to 'John Palermo' by both Ms Smith and Mr Sussa was 'in all likelihood reference to Mr Palermo Senior (i.e. Mr Palermo's father)'.[591]
9. At least the second of those submissions was wholly inconsistent with Ms Smith's evidence in cross-examination. As to the first, while Ms Smith did not claim to have seen Mr Palermo witness the will, she claimed to have seen him, from some distance away, place a pen in his bag as he was rising from the table.
10. A further substantial area of concern is Ms Smith's evidence as to the will having been witnessed by 'Chum' Taylor and Mr Palermo.
11. As noted, Ms Smith deposed that she saw the names 'Charles Taylor' and 'Palermo' on the reverse of the will, with a signature alongside each name.
12. Ms Smith was initially evasive when cross-examined as to her having stated she had seen the name 'Charles Taylor' on the will. Her answers were directed to the signature she claimed to have seen, which she repeatedly stated looked like 'Charles Taylor'.[592]
13. There was no other evidence of what Mr Taylor's signature looked like.
14. After some time, however, Ms Smith stated that she had not seen 'Executor Charles Taylor' printed on the will, and had not read 'all the little fine print' next to the signature of Mr Taylor, and had not seen anything other than Mr Taylor's signature.[593]
15. Asked about the discrepancy between her oral evidence and her affidavit, Ms Smith initially said, in effect, that Mr Taylor's signature looked like 'Charles', but then said 'I didn't take any notice of the names printed. I was talking to the lawyers about the signature'. Ms Smith then gave the following evidence:

Why, then, would you swear an affidavit under oath, which you confirmed today, which says something different?---If those lawyers are putting Charles Taylor, that - that's on them. That's probably something they've added in.

Who - - -?---I asked about it.

Who - - -?---And I did talk about it.

Who has added - - -?---And - - -

Who has added in?---Well, whoever printed this up. I was talking to those lawyers down the road there, Barrack Street. Subway is underneath it - and Dome - went up there, and I wrote my statement out.

So - - -?---And we went through it together. I was talking and saying that I asked if his name was Charles.

But you - - -?---Right.

You confirmed this morning to his Honour that this affidavit was true and correct?---Yes, it is.

Well, it - - -?---That's what I wrote.

Well, it's not, because you're now saying that somebody else put something in your affidavit which is incorrect?---I re-read over it quickly. I obviously didn't realise that they had written Charles. The conversation was I asked if his name was Charles.

And it's correct, isn't it, that when you saw the witness section of the will, you didn't see the name Palermo. You only saw the signature?‑‑‑You are saying that. But I knew who he was, so I presumed that was Palermo.

1. I do not accept that Ms Smith identified Mr Palermo's name from his signature. Examples of Mr Palermo's signature appear in evidence on the March 2004 mortgage and his affidavit. His signature is not clearly legible, to an extent that I find that it is not possible to identify Mr Palermo's name from his signature alone.
2. Ms Smith was not re-examined regarding the discrepancy between her affidavit, in which she deposed that she had seen Mr Palermo's name printed next to his signature, and her evidence in cross-examination to the effect that she saw only his signature.
3. Ms Smith's evidence in cross-examination was that she was not introduced to Chum Taylor. She did not say whether she had met him before that day. On her evidence, she asked Mr Taylor whether his name was Charles because the name Charles Taylor was on the will. She said that she had asked him if he was Chum Taylor, to which he said yes. Ms Smith then said that she chatted to Chum Taylor about speedway.
4. Her evidence in cross-examination was that there were coffee cups and a plate on the table, but the will was 'sort of, sitting in front of [Robert].'
5. Ms Smith's evidence was that she knew what a will looks like.
6. Although Ms Smith had stated in her affidavit that the name Charles Taylor appeared next to Chum Taylor's signature, in cross‑examination she said that she did not see the name Charles on the document.
7. Ms Smith claimed to recognise Chum Taylor's signature from having seen it on memorabilia kept at the Claremont speedway. There was, however, no evidence as to how Mr Taylor's signature appeared, nor was there any evidence that he ever went by the name 'Charles'.
8. Both in her affidavit and in cross-examination, Ms Smith gave evidence to the effect that, having seen Chum Taylor's signature, she asked Mr Taylor 'is your real name Charles', and that he responded, 'I thought you would know that'.
9. I reject Ms Smith's evidence that she saw the name 'Charles Taylor' on the document, and that she asked Mr Taylor whether his real name was Charles that she received a response which, in effect, confirmed that to be the case.
10. I do so because, in the absence of any evidence that 'Chum' Taylor ever went by the name Charles, it is unlikely, having regard to the fact that he gave his name as Edwin Vernon Taylor to the newspaper reporter, that Mr Taylor told Ms Smith that his name was 'Charles'. Further, Ms Smith's evidence is opposed to the evidence of Mr Palermo, which was to the effect that he did not ever witness a will for Robert with 'Chum 'Taylor.
11. A further reason not to accept Ms Smith's evidence is that in cross‑examination she gave evidence that she had been walking towards the Leederville railway station along Oxford Street when she saw, on the opposite side of the road, her uncle, John White (a man related to her), John Palermo and Chum Taylor at a coffee table outside a café on Oxford Street the name of which she could not remember. Her evidence was to the effect that she saw Mr Palermo standing at the table, and saw him put a pen in a bag that he was carrying. This evidence as to how far she was from the table when she first saw the four men was inconsistent. Initially Ms Smith said in cross‑examination that she crossed the road, so that she was on the same side of the road as the four men. Mr Palermo left the group and commenced walking towards Ms Smith. Ms Smith's evidence was that when she passed Mr Palermo, she recognised him and said hello. Her evidence was they were several hundred metres from the coffee table at the time this occurred, implying that she had been further away from the table when she saw Mr Palermo put a pen away.
12. Subsequently, when asked, Ms Smith said that she was 100 m away from the table when she and Mr Palermo crossed paths, or at least five to six shop fronts.
13. I consider it very doubtful that Ms Smith could see Mr Palermo put a pen in a bag, or at least could not identify the object he placed in a bag, as a pen, from the distances she claimed to have seen Mr Palermo.
14. Ms Smith did not mention Mr Palermo being present with the other three men at the table in her affidavit, which served as her evidence‑in‑chief. Her evidence in that regard arose for the first time in the course of cross-examination.
15. That evidence was, not necessarily unsurprisingly, therefore not put to Mr Palermo, so that he was not given an opportunity to comment on. I note, in this regard, that notwithstanding that Ms Smith made no mention of the involvement of Mr Palermo in the meeting at the coffee table, in her affidavit evidence, that evidence had been disclosed to Rosemary Rispoli prior to Ms Smith giving evidence. In cross‑examination, Rosemary Rispoli referred to what would become Ms Smith's evidence, although Ms Rispoli denied recalling how she came to know that information.
16. In her affidavit, Ms Smith stated that John Palermo's name had been printed next to his signature. In cross-examination, however, she stated that she identified his name from Mr Palermo's signature. She did not give evidence that she was familiar with his signature.
17. There were two incidences of Mr Palermo's signature in evidence. The first was a mortgage granted by Robert to National Australia Bank Ltd, which Mr Palermo executed as a witness to Robert's signature. Mr Palermo's evidence was that he could not recall having signed the mortgage, but it was not uncommon for people to attend the offices of his accounting firm and ask for signatures to be witnessed. The second was Mr Palermo's affidavit sworn in 2024, which bore his signature on each page.
18. There is some minor difference between Mr Palermo's signature as at 2004 and his signature in 2024, as present in his affidavit. In neither case is it possible to identify Mr Palermo's name from his signature alone. I do not accept Ms Smith's evidence that she did so.
19. A further reason for rejecting Ms Smith's evidence is that she claimed to have read the will whilst standing at the coffee table speaking to her uncle, Robert. Although it was not stated in evidence, in cross-examination Ms Smith stated that the document she saw was set out on the table in front of her. Her evidence was that the document looked like an Australia Post will kit with the will unfolded and the top side of that document facing the sky. Ms Smith stated, when asked by me, that the will had been orientated with the bottom of the will first page of the will towards Mr Taylor, and such that any text on that will would have been perpendicular to Ms Smith.
20. Her evidence was she read the document whilst she was standing at the coffee table, engaged in conversation. Although her estimate of the time in which she viewed the document varied, the upper limit was two minutes.
21. Ms Smith said that she saw the back of the document when the wind blew the document over, so that the reverse page was pointing to the sky.
22. In that position, Ms Smith would not only have been reading the document while the text was perpendicular to her, but the text on the document would have pointed towards her.
23. Although she did not mention it in her affidavit, her evidence in cross‑examination was that Robert Rispoli closed the will by placing his hand upon it at some point.
24. Ms Smith's ability to read the whole of the document in the time available to her and her recollection of its contents more than 15 years after she claimed to have seen if for a few minutes is highly implausible. Not only did Ms Smith have a limited opportunity to read the document, but on her evidence the text in the will was perpendicular to where she was standing. On Ms Smith's evidence, she had to read the text in the will from bottom to top on one side, and the reverse on the other. Moreover, on her evidence she did so within a few minutes, at a distance (short though it may have been) while engaged in conversation with Robert and Chum Taylor. That appears to me to be a fundamentally more difficult task than simply reading the contents of a will in the ordinary way.
25. Ms Smith did not mention having any difficulty in reading the will.
26. I note that in her affidavit, she made no mention of the will having been signed by Robert, although in cross-examination she claimed that it was.
27. I reject Ms Smith's evidence. Although I consider her evidence as to how she came to read and recall the terms of the will implausible and there are a series of inconsistencies in her evidence, my principal reasons for doing so are her change in position as to whether the name Charles Taylor appeared on the will, and her evidence that Mr Taylor affirmed, in effect, that his real name was Charles Taylor. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Taylor ever used the name 'Charles', I am unconvinced that any conversation to that or similar effect ever took place between Ms Smith and Mr Taylor.
28. My rejection of Ms Smith's evidence regarding the use of the name 'Charles' in the will and her alleged conversation with Mr Taylor regarding his name is such that I do not accept her evidence unless it is independently corroborated by contemporaneous documents or another witness.

1. Ms Bailey met Alison in 2006. They have been good friends since that time.
2. She deposed that in February 2016, she visited Alison at Alison's then business premises. Alison told her that her business had no money coming in, and was in difficult financial circumstances with a business loan, a mortgage and no tenant in her investment property, which she had been unable to sell.
3. On that occasion, Ms Bailey and Alison went to Sussan's in Subiaco. While they were there, Alison stood at a counter, talking to a woman Ms Bailey has never seen before.[594]
4. Ms Bailey selected some clothes, and returned to the counter. At that point, Alison was complaining to the woman that she needed money now. Ms Bailey's evidence was that Alison said to the woman:[595]

I need some money. Things are really bad. I'm going to have to get a job, you know. [I'm going to] have to sell my house. And I'm really, really stressed out. I'm worried about the future.

1. Her evidence was that the woman said to Alison a few times that 'you will be fine', and then said:[596]

'You will be fine.' She said, 'You - your father will look after you. You - you girls - you - you have been left everything in his will. It has all been left to you three beautiful girls,' like that.

1. On Ms Bailey's evidence, after she and Alison left the store, Ms Bailey asked her who was that woman and Alison told her that she was 'just a friend of Dad's'.[597]
2. Ms Bailey gave evidence that she met the woman again two days after Robert's funeral in 2018, when she went to the Dwyer Street house.
3. Ms Bailey gave evidence in a manner which strongly suggested that she believed the truth of what she was saying. She swore to the truth of her evidence of what the woman had said 'on her children's life'.
4. Victoria denied that the conversation occurred in her affidavit sworn 13 September 2024. She was not cross-examined as to the conversation nor her denial of it, with the consequence that a direct assessment of Victoria's credibility on the point, compared to that of Ms Bailey, is not possible.
5. Nor did Alison give evidence of that conversation, which I would have expected had it occurred.
6. Ms Bailey's evidence is inconsistent with Alison's evidence of the nature of Victoria's relationship with Robert, in that it implies that Robert told Victoria what he intended to do with his estate.
7. It is also inconsistent with my rejection of the evidence of Ms Smith and Mr Sussa as to the existence of the 2008 will alleged by Alison.
8. In all the circumstances, particularly the failure to cross-examine Victoria as to the conversation and Alison's failure to give evidence of it, I am not satisfied that Ms Bailey's evidence should be preferred to that of Victoria.
9. I therefore do not take Ms Bailey's evidence into account in assessing whether Robert made a will as alleged by Alison.

1. Mr Kotovski deposed that between 1999 and 2012 he regularly attended Robert's muffler shop and had drinks with him. He and Robert became friends in the early 2000s.
2. He recalled going to 11 Dwyer Street about half a dozen times 'in the early 2000s or thereabouts', although he could not remember the house number when asked.[598] His recollection was that the house was dark.
3. On one of those occasions a woman who Robert introduced to him as Vicky dropped in for a short while. Although Mr Kotovski said that he could not recall why Vicky came over or the purpose of her visit, and would not be able to recognise her, he could remember that her visit lasted 10 or 15 minutes.
4. Mr Kotovski deposed to having a conversation with Robert about some of the difficulties Robert was going through with his personal life and Vicky. In cross-examination he identified that conversation as having occurred in early 2001. His evidence was that Robert spoke disparagingly of Vicky, that Robert was having a hard time with her, did not want her in his life anymore and felt she was a bit of gold digger and looking to take advantage of him as Robert was single.
5. Mr Kotovski deposed to having had another conversation with Robert on a date he did not recall after Mr Kotovski had finalised his divorce in April 2007, in which Robert told him that he preferred to be at work more than being at home to avoid Vicky, Vicky had been trying to call him to arrange to come to his house, and Vicky had been pestering him about getting back together again.
6. Although Mr Kotovski deposed that from that point on Robert 'rarely discussed or mentioned Vicky with me again', he formed the belief that Robert did not have any relationship with Vicky anymore and that he ended things with her for good. He did not disclose when and what Robert had said to him about Vicky thereafter, and he did not say why he had formed the view that Robert had ended things with her.
7. His evidence in cross-examination was that he had one or two interactions with Robert after 2012. He accepted that he had no idea what happened in relation to Victoria after 2012.
8. Mr Kotovski did not refer in his affidavit to having known Alison for 10 years,[599] nor that his company, Roy Western Ltd, had been appointed as managing agents to 'sort out the estate's assets' by Alison. He said in cross-examination that Roy Weston had subsequently been appointed by the interim administrator. [600]
9. His evidence was that he had been discussing the property at 193 Scarborough Beach Road with Alison.[601] He avoided answering a question why he had been discussing that property with her and not the administrator,[602] and disclosed that he had copied Alison in on reports he provided to the administrator.[603]
10. It is unnecessary to form any view about Mr Kotovksi's failure to disclose his relationship and dealings with Alison, as his evidence is of limited import. At its highest, it concerned something said to him by Robert about his relationship with Victoria in 2001, and again at some point in 2007 or thereabouts. As Mr Kotovski conceded, he knew nothing of Robert's relationship with Victoria after 2012.[604]
11. It is therefore unnecessary to make any finding as to why Robert might complain that he preferred to be at work so as to avoid Victoria, but I note that Victoria's unchallenged evidence is that she was working full‑time at Sussan as from 1998. If that were so, there would have been no need for Robert to go to work to avoid her unless Victoria was living with him.

1. Jean is married to Robert's younger brother, Enrico.
2. Jean deposed that she became friends with the plaintiff in 2011. Her affidavit evidence was that her relationship with Victoria developed to the point where they would speak by telephone a few days each week.
3. On a date Jean could not recall, but which she believed was within a year of developing her friendship with Victoria, she spoke to Victoria by telephone in the evening. In cross-examination, Jean's evidence was that conversation had occurred approximately 12 years earlier, making it about 2012. She agreed that Victoria was living at Dwyer Street, Karrinyup at the time of the conversation,[605] and that Victoria and Robert were living in a very serious relationship at that time.[606]
4. Jean's evidence was that during that telephone call, Victoria sounded quite upset, and told Jean that she had found Robert's will in his safe at Karrinyup and had read it. Jean's evidence was that the plaintiff told her that Robert had not left her anything in his will and he had left everything to his three daughters. She said that Victoria had told her that she knew where Robert hid the safe key.
5. Her evidence was that it was not unusual for Victoria to complain to her about Robert during their telephone calls and that each time Victoria complained, she had advised Victoria to leave him if she was not happy. In cross-examination, Jean's evidence was that those conversations continued to at least 2013 or 2014, but not 2015.[607]
6. Jean also deposed to a conversation with Victoria on 12 April 2019, when she went to Sussan's to ask Victoria about what was happening with Robert's estate and why there was a dispute involving Robert's daughters. How she came to know that information and why she did so was not addressed.
7. Jean deposed that the conversation lasted about five minutes, and took place while Victoria was standing behind the sales counter at Sussan's. Her evidence was that in the course of that conversation she said to Victoria that 'they say there's no will, but you told me you have seen it'. Victoria said that she hadn't and there was no will.
8. Jean was asked about how she recalled the date of that conversation. Her evidence was, ultimately, that she did not remember how she came to state that conversation had occurred.[608] Jean said in cross‑examination:

Then you say, after the funeral, you drove to Subiaco on 12 April. How do you recall that date some five years ago or four years, five years ago?---I recall the date.

The precise date, 12 April, what day of the week was that?---Well, I can't remember that.

And how do you recall that date?---Well, because I had - - -

Five years ago, did you document it anywhere?---I had written it down the day I went to see Vicky.

Where did you write it down?---I - I just recall the day.

You just said you had written it down?---I'm not sure if I sent a text, but I - I - yes.

I'm just trying to understand when you say you're not sure if you sent a text. If you sent a text to who?---Well, that was the day, which - - -

Well, you've just mentioned you sent a text?---I said I could have sent a text.

To whom?---It would have been to Vicky to say I'm coming over. I'm not sure. I can't - I don't remember.

Do you have text messages between yourself and Victoria?---Not anymore.

What have you done with it?---I deleted them years ago.

1. Jean's affidavit evidence was that she had not told Victoria she was coming to visit. In cross-examination, she accepted that she had not seen Victoria in the three, four or five years before Robert's death. Although Jean initially said in cross-examination that the only time Jean had spoken to Victoria between 2014 and the 12 April 2019 was at Robert's funeral, she subsequently said she that she had telephoned Victoria to offer her condolences on the day of Robert's death.
2. Jean did not remember how she came to learn of the dispute between Victoria and the sisters.[609] She denied that anyone approached her to intervene in the dispute.[610] Jean did not explain why she thought it appropriate to approach Victoria about the matter so long after they had essentially ceased to be in contact.
3. Jean also deposed to a third conversation on 3 May 2019 at a café on Rokeby Road, in which Jean said to Victoria that if she was called to give evidence at the court, she (Jean) would have to give evidence that Victoria had told her previously about discovering and reading Robert's will.
4. In her affidavit sworn in reply, Victoria denied speaking to Jean multiple times each week, and said they spoke infrequently. Victoria denied having seen a will of Robert, and denied having the first two conversations identified by Jean.
5. Victoria accepted that a conversation had occurred at the café in Rokeby Road, but denied it occurred as claimed by Jean. Victoria's evidence was that Jean did say that if the matter went to court, she (Jean) would say that Victoria had seen Robert's will, to which Victoria replied 'why would you say that when you know it's untrue'.
6. There was nothing in Victoria's cross‑examination regarding her dealings with Jean which caused me to question Victoria's evidence regarding them. In contrast, Jean's evidence in cross-examination as to how she recalled the date on which the second conversation occurred, how she came to learn of the dispute and her lack of explanation as to why she went to see Victoria in April 2019 were unconvincing.
7. There are also aspects of Jean's evidence which are implausible. In cross‑examination, Jean's evidence was that she had typed her own affidavit[611] at home. She said that she typed the text of her affidavit, commencing from the chapeau,[612] and that she had done so before she spoke to the defendants' solicitors.[613] Her evidence was that she forwarded the affidavit to the solicitors before speaking to them.[614]
8. Although Jean said that she had not previously prepared an affidavit,[615] and did not know whether she had seen an affidavit before she wrote her own,[616] she said she knew from her general knowledge how the form of an affidavit looked. Jean stated she knew that she needed to include her name, address and occupation in the chapeau to her affidavit from her general knowledge,[617] and that she did not know where she obtained the wording 'make oath and say as follows', but 'sat down and wrote it'.[618]
9. Jean wrote certain portions of her conversations with Victoria in direct speech, but was unable to clearly identify why she had done so.[619]
10. The form and text of Jean's affidavit is consistent with it having been prepared by solicitors. The usual statement to the effect that the document was prepared by Alison's solicitors appears in the tramlines on the first page of the affidavit, although I accept that is not conclusive.
11. It is implausible that Jean wrote her affidavit in the terms that she did without having previously seen an example of an affidavit or having had some assistance with, at least, the formatting and formal parts of the document.
12. I do not understand why a witness would adopt the position that they received no assistance whatsoever in drafting an affidavit, but Jean having done so, it cannot be overlooked in considering her credibility.
13. It is also implausible that Jean determined to see Victoria at work, without warning, to discuss the dispute between Victoria and the sisters of her own volition, when Jean had not spoken to Victoria for approximately four years prior to Robert's funeral. Jean did not answer the question why she had done so, saying instead that she had spoken to Victoria on the day Robert died to pass on her condolences.[620]
14. There is no way to reconcile the evidence of Victoria and Jean regarding the first two conversations Jean says took place between them. Jean's credibility must be assessed not only in the context of her evidence as to how her affidavit was prepared and her unconvincing evidence in cross-examination, but also in the context that I have found that the evidence that Robert made the 2008 will should not be accepted.
15. To the extent that there was evidence of the terms of the mirror will Robert made when he was married to Kerry, Jean's description of what she was told about it is at least partly inconsistent with the evidence that there was a codicil made after Stephanie was born.
16. There is also the difficulty that Jean's evidence is inconsistent with that of Ms Bailey. On Jean's evidence, Victoria was dismayed to discover that Robert had not left anything to her in his will. On Ms Bailey's evidence, Victoria reassured Alison that Alison would be ok financially in the future because Robert had left everything to her and her sisters.
17. While it is possible that Victoria became accustomed to Robert having made a decision to leave everything to his daughters in the period between 2012 and 2016, that was not put to Victoria. It is contrary to Victora's evidence that Robert did not have a will. There is therefore no basis to make any finding to that effect.
18. In the circumstances, where there is a dispute between the evidence of Victoria and Jean, I prefer the evidence of Victoria.
19. I find that Victoria did not tell Jean that she had seen Robert's will and that the will stated that Robert's three daughters were to receive everything. Further, I do not accept that Jean saw Victoria at Sussan's in Subiaco in April 2019 or that a conversation took place between them to the effect stated by Jean.

1. Mr Combley met Robert in early 2004. He deposed that he became good mates with Robert, who began inviting him to drinks on a Friday night at West Coast Mufflers.
2. He saw Chum Taylor and Steve Bumbak at those drinks on occasion. Victoria used to pop in occasionally.
3. He said that he went to see Robert at 11 Dwyer Street at least 50 to 60 times. He did not say whether he did so during the day or at night. From 2010 he saw Robert infrequently, as he was working up north. He visited Dwyer Street once or twice after that.
4. His evidence was that he first met Victoria at West Coast Mufflers. She would occasionally turn up there to say hello when Mr Combley was helping Robert out with something. He deposed that, on one occasion, Victoria told Mr Comley she was just stopping in because she lived nearby in Mount Hawthorn.
5. He saw Victoria at 11 Dwyer Street about half a dozen times. He deposed that when Victoria did pop in, it was 'usually just to say hello, have a quick cuppa or do some cleaning'.
6. Mr Combley never had the impression that Robert and Victoria were in an intimate relationship, because he never saw them kiss, hug or hold hands. He never asked Robert about Victoria.
7. Mr Combley also deposed that sometime in 2008, on a date which he could not recall, Robert told him that he was going to pop out for a moment. When he returned, Robert told Mr Combley that he had purchased a will pack from an Australia Post office. He had a red and white paper bag, about A4 sized, with him.
8. Mr Combley did not see whatever had been purchased by Robert. He deposed that while they were drinking scotch and dry later that day Robert told him that he did not want to spend any money on lawyers, and he was leaving everything to his daughters.
9. Mr Combley did not know when in 2008 he had that conversation with Robert. He did not know what Robert did with the item in the bag.
10. Mr Combley presented as an honest witness, although he was somewhat aggressive in responding to certain questions from Victoria's counsel, and had difficulty drawing distinctions between what he observed and his opinion as to certain matters. By way of example, Mr Combley was certain in his view that Victoria never lived at the Dwyer Street house, although ultimately that was his opinion based on having seen nothing of Victoria's 'stuff' and no photographs of her in those areas of the house that he had seen.
11. Victoria addressed Mr Comley's evidence in her affidavit sworn 13 September 2024. She accepted that he had been at Dwyer Street, but not anywhere near 50 or 60 times, and denied having told Mr Combley that she lived in Mount Hawthorn.
12. Victoria was not cross-examined on her evidence regarding Mr Combley. I am accordingly unable to make any finding as to whether she told Mr Combley that she lived in Mount Hawthorn, although, as addressed below, I am comfortably satisfied that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports a finding that Victoria lived at Dwyer Street from approximately 1998.
13. Mr Combley's evidence is of little assistance in resolving the issue whether Robert ever made a will in the terms alleged by Alison. At its highest, his evidence establishes that Robert told him that he had bought a will kit at some point in 2008 and, while drinking, told Mr Combley that he intended to make a will leaving everything to his daughters.
14. His evidence does not establish that Robert made a will in those terms.

1. Mr Sussa's evidence was that he was a long‑time friend of Robert. Although Mr Sussa did not disclose his relationship with each of Alison, Rose-Marie and Stephanie in his affidavit, his evidence was that he knew each of them fairly well. He said that they used to attend Robert's house and Stephanie would bring food to the drinks at Robert's muffler shop on Friday nights. He would attend those drinks occasionally, when Robert invited him.
2. He did not see Victoria at the Friday night drinks.
3. Mr Sussa's evidence was that Robert had once told him that Mr Sussa was the only person he really trusted. He deposed that occasionally Victoria would visit Robert while he was with him. He said that Victoria 'would not let herself in, she rang the doorbell. On these occasions, Robert, Victoria and I would have a coffee. We would make general conversation and Victoria would leave.'
4. Mr Sussa's evidence was that he did not ask Robert who Victoria was, or her status in his life. He just assumed that they were friends. He said that Robert seemed to know a lot of women, but he did not disclose the basis for that view.
5. Mr Sussa did not explain why, if he assumed Victoria was simply a friend of Robert, he contacted her to ask her assistance with arranging a witness for his mother's power of attorney. He did not give evidence of any relationship between Victoria and himself, separate from his claimed view that Victoria was a friend of Robert, that would suggest why he sought Victoria's assistance.
6. How Mr Sussa came to give evidence was also not explained. On his evidence, Robert showed Mr Sussa his will a few months before his death. He claimed to be a very good friend of Robert, and to have gone to the Dwyer Street property 'possibly, up to 20 times a year'. He first started to go to Dwyer Street in 2004. His evidence was that he knew Robert's daughters fairly well, assisted Robert with work on each of his daughter's houses, and was a 'very good friend' of Robert.
7. There was no suggestion that Mr Sussa attended Robert's funeral.
8. He deposed to having stayed the night at Dwyer Street at least six times during the first few years after he met Robert, when he had drunk too much to drive home. In cross‑examination, while Mr Sussa maintained that he stayed at Dwyer Street up to 6 times in the years he knew Robert, he was unable to identify in which years that had been.
9. He accepted that he visited Dwyer Street occasionally in the evenings, but mostly during the day.
10. Contrary to his affidavit,[621] Mr Sussa first gave evidence in cross-examination that he never saw Victoria at Dwyer Street.[622] Asked whether he had not seen her in all the years he had been there '20 times a year', Mr Sussa then said, consistently with his affidavit evidence, that occasionally, Victoria would pop in, saying that she would ring the doorbell.
11. Asked whether Victoria entered the house through the garage, Mr Sussa said that he really did not know, because he was usually in the kitchen area with Robert. He then said that he believed Victoria used to ring the doorbell, saying that he did not think Victoria had a key. Pressed on the point, Mr Sussa reverted to saying that Victoria used to ring the doorbell, and then accepted that, if Victoria entered through the garage, it was possible that she did not ring the doorbell.
12. Mr Sussa said that in early March 2018 Robert had come to Mr Sussa's house in Langford. Mr Sussa deposed that while they were discussing Mr Sussa's partner, Robert asked him if he had a will. Mr Sussa's evidence was that in the course of that conversation Mr Sussa asked Robert if he had done his will and was told that Robert had done a will and everything would be going to his three daughters.
13. Mr Sussa further deposed that on 6 or 7 August 2017 he went to Robert's house as he usually did. His evidence is that he spent about an hour with Robert having coffee in his kitchen. Mr Sussa said that the conversation led to his discussing his relationship with his partner again and Robert brought up his will again. Robert said something like 'wait here a moment' and went upstairs.
14. Mr Sussa deposed in his affidavit that:

When Rob came back downstairs, he had in his hand his will. He told me that he had bought it from Australia Post. He seemed quite proud that he had only paid something like $20 for it. Rob said something like 'Don't waste your money on a lawyer for your will, it is much cheaper and has the same effect if you get a will kit from Australia Post. You just need to appoint an executor and have two witnesses to sign it.'

The will was a booklet that folded out in the middle. It had a blue glossy cover and was called a ' Single Will Pack'. Rob had the will in his hands with the long page folded out, which was thicker than the rest of the pages and similar to certificate paper. Rob showed me both sides of the long page.

When I was shown the front page of the will, I observed:

(a) Rob's full name 'Biagio Roberto Rispoli' was the first thing written on the front page.

(b) Below Rob's name was the name John White. I specifically recall the name 'White', which for some reason stuck in my mind.

(c) On the bottom of the first page, I recall seeing the. names of Rob's three daughters, Rose-Marie Rispoli, Alison Rispoli and Stephanie Rispoli.

When I was shown the back page of the will, I observed:

(a) Rob's signature.

(b) The signature and name of two witnesses, namely Charles Taylor and John Palermo.

All the handwritten entries in Rob's will were done in black pen.

I did not see the name Victoria Varelis on the will.

I had met Charles Taylor previously with Robert. He was referred to as 'Chum'. Chum came with Robert and me to inspect a Cadillac in Maddington that Rob wanted to do up as a hobby project. It was somewhat of a wild goose chase and that sticks in my mind. I was also told by Rob that he and Chum would catch up religiously on Saturday mornings for coffee. I would attend on some of these Saturdays and would see Alison there occasionally.

I knew John Palermo was Rob's accountant. I had met John once before in Leederville. He walked down from his office and had a coffee with Rob and me.

After showing me the will; which only took a few minutes, Rob then folded it up, left the kitchen and went back upstairs to return the will.

1. Mr Sussa did not ever hold the will himself. On his evidence in cross‑examination, he read the will across a kitchen bench. He agreed in cross‑examination that Robert showing him the will would have taken less than a minute, but then said it had taken maybe two or three minutes.
2. Mr Palermo was not cross-examined as to whether he had ever met Mr Sussa, or had coffee with him.
3. Mr Sussa was confused in cross-examination as to whether Robert had shown him the will in August 2017 or August 2018. When asked how he remembered events from 4 or five years ago, Mr Sussa gave the non‑responsive answer 'because my partner's birthday was in February'. Questioned further on the topic, Mr Sussa was unable to give a satisfactory answer as to how his partner's birthday being in February helped him to recall when the conversation where Robert was said to have shown him the will occurred. Asked if he could remember that the date he saw Robert was 6 or 7 August because he had made a diary note, Mr Sussa agreed.
4. There were four pages of diary entries attached to Ms Sussa's affidavit. The first two pages related to 7 to 12 August 2017. An entry referred to Robert checking in for knee surgery on 7 August 2017. The remaining pages related to 8 and 9 August 2018, with one entry referring to Robert having an appointment on 9 August 2018. There was otherwise no reference to Robert in those notes, and nothing to suggest that Mr Sussa had had a conversation with Robert at Robert's house in the days immediately prior to 7 August 2017 or 2018.
5. Mr Sussa then gave evidence that Robert had not shown him the will until 2018. He then said the conversation with Robert in which he had been shown the will had occurred in 2017, and then confirmed twice that it had been in 2017.
6. Asked about his evidence that he had asked Robert whether he had a will in March 2018, Mr Sussa then said that the conversation (by which I understood him to mean the conversation in which Robert had shown him the will) must have been in 2018, not 2017.
7. Shown his affidavit, which stated the conversation had been on 6 or 7 August 2017, Mr Sussa then said that his affidavit was wrong, and that had been a mistake by the lawyers that prepared his affidavit.
8. In cross-examination, Mr Sussa's evidence was that he knew John White was nominated the executor because 'it had executor and it had him and he had signed it',[623] by which I understood Mr Sussa's evidence to be that John White had signed the will. Mr Sussa did not identify where Mr White had signed the form. If that was the intent of his evidence, it is inconsistent with his affidavit evidence as to who had signed the form, although it could be that he meant that Robert had done so.
9. Mr Sussa's evidence in cross-examination was that he had seen the word 'Charles' on the will, and that he was sure that the words 'Charles Taylor' appeared on the will as a witness.[624] He was asked to state how the name 'Charles' was spelt in the will, and did so. Mr Sussa was then asked whether he was certain about that, and confirmed that he was.[625] He was asked again about his recollection that the will had been witnessed by someone called Charles Taylor, and Mr Sussa confirmed that it was Charles.[626]
10. Mr Sussa then said that he assumed that Chum Taylor had witnessed the will, because, with the surname Taylor, it must have been him and because Robert was his (Mr Taylor's) good friend, and trusted Chum Taylor.
11. Mr Sussa did not know that Charles Taylor was not 'Chum' Taylor's real name.
12. There was no evidence to suggest that Robert knew a man called Charles Taylor. Other than Ms Smith's evidence, there was no evidence to suggest that 'Chum' Taylor ever told any person his name was Charles. Mr Taylor did not give the name Charles to the 'West Australian' reporter in 2017. As Mr Taylor's first name was Edwin Vernon Taylor and he seems to have gone by the nickname 'Chum', there is no reason to think that Mr Taylor would tell people his name was Charles.
13. The principal difficulty with Ms Sussa's evidence about Robert having shown him a will is that it is therefore inherently incredible that the name 'Charles Taylor' would appear on a will signed by Mr Taylor. Whilst the presence of that name on the will might ordinarily be explained by the fact that the will was witnessed by someone other than 'Chum' Taylor, in addition to Mr Palermo, that was not how Alison's case was put and there is no evidence to support any finding to that effect.
14. I find that Mr Sussa's evidence that the name Charles Taylor was present on the will means that his evidence that 'Chum' Taylor was a witness to the will cannot be accepted.
15. I further find that Mr Taylor did not witness the alleged will.
16. Mr Wright's evidence presents a further obstacle to accepting Mr Sussa's evidence.
17. Mr Wright deposed that, at Victoria's request, he met Mr Sussa on 10 April 2019 at Mr Sussa's home in Langford. Victoria had told Mr Wright that Mr Sussa was a good friend of hers. Mr Wright had not had any dealings with Mr Sussa before meeting him at his home.
18. When they met, Mr Sussa told Mr Wright that he wanted Mr Wright to witness his mother's signature on an enduring power of attorney and that Mr Sussa's brother also held a power of attorney from his mother.
19. Mr Wright's evidence was that he told Mr Sussa that two people could not have separate powers of attorney from the same grantor and suggested he contact a lawyer. In response to Mr Sussa's request, Mr Wright gave him the name of a lawyer.
20. His evidence was that he and Mr Sussa then had a coffee together. During their conversation over coffee, Mr Sussa told Mr Wright that he (Mr Sussa) and Victoria were good friends, and that Victoria deserved all of Robert's assets as they had been together as a couple for a long period of time. Mr Sussa mentioned to Mr Wright that Robert did not have a will.
21. Mr Sussa also told Mr Wright that Robert adored Victoria, and that Victoria had put up with a lot from Robert during the years that they were together. Asked in cross-examination, Mr Wright said he was certain that Mr Sussa had told him that Victoria deserved all of Robert's assets, and that Mr Sussa had told him that Robert did not have a will.
22. In cross-examination, Mr Wright was clear that Mr Sussa had not told him that Robert had shown Mr Sussa a will. Mr Wright confirmed that he had told Mr Sussa about the search for a will, but Mr Sussa had not told him that Mr Sussa had seen one.
23. Mr Wright subsequently introduced Mr Sussa to the solicitor he had recommended to him.
24. Mr Wright gave evidence in a straight-forward manner. His credibility was not affected by cross-examination. Although he had known Victoria for approximately 22 years, she had been closer to his late wife. He had no apparent motive to not tell the truth as he recalled it.
25. Mr Sussa did not refer to his dealings with Mr Wright in his affidavit, which was filed before that of Mr Wright. Leave was not sought to adduce oral evidence from Mr Sussa regarding the meeting with Mr Wright, so that Mr Sussa's evidence regarding that meeting was not disclosed prior to his cross-examination.
26. In cross-examination, Mr Sussa agreed that Mr Wright had attended at his house. His evidence was that he and Mr Wright had mainly talked about music. He denied having told Mr Wright that he and Victoria were good friends, or that the two of them discussed Victoria. Mr Sussa said that he had not told Mr Wright that Victoria deserved all of Robert's assets, or that he had told Mr Wright that Robert did not have a will. When asked whether Mr Wright had come to court to make that up,[627] Mr Sussa evaded the question, stating that that he had seen the will.
27. Mr Sussa was not asked in cross-examination whether Mr Wright had told him that there had been a search for a will at Robert's house.
28. Mr Wright deposed that he was a hydraulic services, fire and public health engineer. He was not asked in cross-examination whether he and Mr Sussa had discussed music, whether mainly or at all, or whether he was a musician, as Mr Sussa claimed he had told him.
29. As already stated, while Mr Sussa accepts that Mr Wright came to his home, it is not possible to reconcile the evidence of Mr Wright and Mr Sussa about what they discussed there.
30. Mr Sussa was not re-examined, with the consequence that Mr Sussa did not explain why he asked Victoria for help regarding his mother when, on his evidence, he did not have any substantial relationship with her.
31. Nor did he give evidence as to when he told Alison or her sisters that Robert had shown him a will or how he came to provide that information to one or more of them or their solicitors, which is odd, given that his evidence in cross-examination was that he was on good terms with each of them. Nor did Alison give evidence as to how Mr Sussa was identified as a witness to the existence of the will.
32. I have considered whether the fact that Alison and her two sisters received legal advice in 2022 or 2023 that they lacked sufficient evidence to plead that Robert had made a will and that no counterclaim was made until 2023 indicates that Mr Wright's evidence that he told Mr Sussa that a search had been conducted for Robert's will and none had been found should not be accepted. It might be expected that, if Mr Wright told Mr Sussa of the unsuccessful search, Mr Sussa would have contacted Alison or one of her sisters, if not Victoria, shortly thereafter to tell them he knew that Robert had made a will, and that he had seen it.
33. Ultimately, I consider that the point is equivocal. It is not determinative of the credibility of either witness.
34. On the balance of probabilities, I consider that Mr Wright's evidence as to what was said between he and Mr Sussa is to be accepted. In coming to that view, I have placed reliance on Mr Wright's superior recollection in giving evidence, as against Mr Sussa's obvious confusion as to dates and other matters; that Mr Wright is an independent witness, in the sense that his relationship with Victoria, while long standing, was through his deceased wife; Mr Sussa's failure to give evidence as to why he sought Victoria's help in dealing with his mother, and my rejection of Mr Sussa's evidence as to the contents of the alleged 2008 will.
35. I have also had regard to the fact that there was no suggestion that John White, who should be taken to have known that he had been nominated by Robert as executor in the alleged 2008 will if Ms Smith's evidence were to be accepted, ever mentioned that fact to anyone, and there being no suggestion that Mr Taylor was approached as whether he thought Robert had made a will at any time. I have not overlooked that Mr Taylor had dementia by the time of the trial, and presumably had suffered from it for some time, but the 2017 newspaper interview suggests that he was still lucid at that time and there was no evidence that his condition had deteriorated by January 2019 to the point that he could not have been asked about whether Robert had made a will.
36. As Alison and her sisters were apparently looking for Robert's will not long after his death, it must have been obvious to Alison, at least, that Mr Taylor should be approached about that topic.
37. As with Ms Smith, I would not accept Mr Sussa's evidence unless it was against his interest or corroborated by the witness of another person, other than Ms Smith.
38. Mr Sussa initially gave evidence in cross-examination that the will had been signed by Robert at the bottom of the first page of the will.
39. It is possible that Ms Smith and Mr Sussa saw different documents, such that the differences in their evidence are to be explained by the fact that they are each describing a different document.
40. I did not accept that explanation, however. There was no evidence to suggest that the nickname 'Chum' is a common nickname for a person called 'Charles', or that Mr Taylor obtained the name 'Chum' for reasons connected with the name Charles, even if it was to be assumed that Mr Taylor was known by that name. The newspaper article is to the contrary.
41. I am left with the position that each of Alison Rispoli, Ms Smith and Mr Sussa all gave evidence to the effect that they assumed that the man who they claimed to have known as Chum Taylor bore the name Charles, and in Ms Smith's case, that she had directly asked him whether that was so and he had, in effect, confirmed that to her.
42. Mr Sussa's evidence was that Robert had never referred to Chum Taylor as Charles Taylor.
43. Each of the witnesses denied speaking to each other regarding their evidence, although how Rose-Marie came to know of the evidence that Ms Smith would give and which was not stated in her affidavit, remained unexplained at the end of the trial. In my opinion, the coincidence of three persons making the same assumption about Mr Taylor's real name, when the basis for doing so is tenuous at best, is a further reason for considering their evidence to be unreliable.
44. I therefore am not satisfied that there was a will executed by Robert, or that the will was duly executed in the presence of John Palermo and Chum Taylor.
45. I found Mr Sussa to be an unconvincing witness. His recollection of events was unreliable. The nature and extent of his dealings with Victoria was unexplained, which is of broader significance when regard is had to his initial denial, contrary to his affidavit, of having had any dealings with Victoria and his having contacted Victoria for help obtaining a witness to his mother's power of attorney. His reliance upon his diary notes as assisting him to recall when events occurred was unconvincing.
46. As with Ms Smith, however, Mr Sussa's repeated evidence that he saw the name 'Charles Taylor' on the will he claims to have been shown by Robert on 6 or 7 August 2018 is fatal to any acceptance of his evidence as truthful.
47. I do not accept Mr Sussa's evidence. For that reason, I am not satisfied that there was a document in the alleged terms of the 2008 will, but which was not formally executed.

1. The significance of the meeting on 2 January 2019 at Mareena Purslowe's Subiaco office is limited to Stephanie having signed the funeral services agreement and the Application to Cremate form, both of which referred to Robert's relationship status as 'de facto' at the time of his death.
2. Even if both of those documents had been shown to have been executed in error, that would not be sufficient to prevent a finding being made on the balance of the evidence that Robert and Victoria were in a de facto relationship at that time.
3. I find that Mrs Markham asked questions of those present to obtain information that she required for the purposes of completing the paperwork required for the funeral and the funeral service, and that she noted the answers to those questions using, in the main, a pen and paper, and a small laptop device.
4. That finding arises from Mrs Markham's evidence that it was her standard, usual or invariable practice to ask the questions required to complete the various documents, which evidence I accept, and her unchallenged evidence that the meeting likely took an hour to 75 minutes, Rose-Marie's evidence that she (Rose-Marie) was not paying attention when 'Stephanie was filling out the forms', together with her evidence that Mrs Markham had been lovely during the meeting, and Stephanie's affidavit evidence of August 2019 that she was asked to answer questions 'about Robert's parents, and his children among other things'.
5. It is further supported by Victoria's evidence, which I accept, that Stephanie provided some of the information to Mrs Markham and completed some of the documentation required including some forms provided by Mareena Purslowe.
6. In particular, I find that Victoria or Stephanie, more likely Victoria, told Mrs Markham in that meeting that Victoria was Robert's de facto partner. That finding is supported by Victoria's evidence, she having deposed to having told Mrs Markham, in Stephanie's presence, that she was Robert's de facto.
7. I do not accept Alison's evidence that Victoria said at the meeting that 'she wanted nothing to do or no responsibility with paperwork, anything'. That was not put to Mrs Markham, nor to Victoria, and I would not accept Alison's evidence on the point in the absence of corroboration.
8. It is improbable, in my view, that Mrs Markham was not told by one of the four people who attended the meeting with her that Robert had been in a de facto relationship with Victoria. My impression of Mrs Markham was that she was a careful funeral arranger and that it is unlikely that she completed part of the forms in the absence of Victoria and the three sisters.
9. Although she knew Victoria, there was no suggestion that they had a close relationship and I consider it unlikely that Mrs Markham would have deviated from her usual practice in the presence of the three sisters, whom she had not previously met, particularly when it was agreed early in the meeting that Stephanie, not Victoria, would be the person entering into the funeral services agreement.
10. In my judgment, Mrs Markham's uncertainty as to whether she might have inserted reference to Robert's de facto status without having asked those present demonstrates that Mrs Markham was an honest witness. Asked whether it was conceivable that she completed a form in a particular way more than five years after the event, given that she knew some of the information independently, it would be a rare witness who would be in a position to be certain of what had occurred.
11. The paper used by Mrs Markham in the meeting included an Application for Cremation and Instruction for Ashes form and an Application for Permit to Cremate form.
12. I find that she completed both forms in the course of the meeting in her handwriting, using the information provided to her in response to the questions she asked. I reject Alison's evidence in cross-examination was that Stephanie 'was only handed two pages. And it was all pre‑filled. Carmel, what she said, asked a series of questions, didn't happen,'[628] as being inconsistent with not only the evidence of Mrs Markham but also that of Stephanie.
13. Of course, if Mrs Markham was completing the forms on the basis of what she was being told in the meeting, the forms would be 'pre‑filled' at the point where Mrs Markham gave them to Stephanie for signature.
14. I find that Mrs Markham also completed the funeral services agreement in the course of the meeting using a small laptop, again using information provided to her during the meeting.
15. All three documents were provided to Stephanie for consideration prior to signature. I find that, in accordance with her standard practice, Mrs Markham gave Stephanie an opportunity to consider the documents before signing them.
16. In this regard, I accept Stephanie's evidence that she was given the opportunity to read the documents before signing them, and simply did not do so.
17. So far as the letter on Mareena Purslowe funerals letterhead dated 9 August 2022[629] referred to an error having occurred relating to the submission of the death information for issue of Robert's death certificate, I give that document no weight. As Mrs Markham was the sole person who attended the meeting on 2 January 2019 on behalf of Mareena Purslowe, she was not contacted by Mareena Purslowe Funerals regarding the matters to which the letter refers, its author was not called as a witness and it was written more than a year after Mrs Markham had left the funeral industry and 31/2 years after the events to which it refers, there is no reason to think that the letter accurately describes what occurred.
18. I place no weight on the sisters' evidence as to what they were subsequently told by Mr McKeig and Kerrie Owen, because those persons did not give evidence, and none of the documents which they claimed were received by Mareena Purslowe were adduced in evidence.
19. I also reject the evidence of what Mrs Markham is claimed to have said to Alison and Stephanie on an occasion after the meeting on 2 January 2019, both because it is inconsistent with Mrs Markham's evidence and because those claims were not put to her in cross-examination.
20. Stephanie addressed what occurred at the meeting on 4 January 2019. In an affidavit she swore on 14 August 2019, in support of an application for the appointment of Alison as interim administrator of Robert's estate, Stephanie stated:

During our first meeting with Mareena Purslowe, I was asked to answer particulars about Robert's parents, and his children among other things. I was also the signatory on the funeral account, listed as next of kin, and responsible for payment.

...

The plaintiff's name was already pre-filled as 'defacto' on Robert's temporary death certificate draft particulars prior to our arrival.

I advised Carmel that I wanted to check some details outside of her office and get back to her, but I was pressured to sign off the draft particulars then and there. I was reassured that this was only a draft and Carmel would have all of the correct information provided from me to approve in due course.

At that time, I did not know the definition of the term defacto.

1. What comprised 'Robert's temporary death certificate draft particulars' was not identified by Stephanie. Mrs Markham was not asked to identify that document in cross‑examination, although she gave evidence of three documents which were prepared at the meeting on 2 January 2019.
2. Mrs Markham was not asked in cross-examination as to whether there was another form prepared for or signed by Stephanie that day.
3. Rose-Marie said nothing about the meeting at Mareena Purslowe in her affidavit evidence. In cross-examination she said that she was not paying attention when Stephanie was filling out the forms. Her evidence was that Victoria was there because she was a friend. She then said she (Victoria) was coming to support us. Her evidence was then that Victoria was there because she was a good friend of Robert.
4. Her evidence was that Victoria was involved in the days leading up to the funeral about the photographs, and that she was with the sisters when they were going through photographs for the purposes of the funeral.[630] She agreed that Victoria was there, and that they had invited her to be present. Rose-Marie was evasive when pressed on whether the sisters had involved Victoria in planning the funeral.
5. It was common ground that Victoria travelled in the main car to the funeral, with Robert's mother. Victoria's evidence was that she and Robert's mother left in the main car after the funeral.
6. Her evidence was that she (Stephanie) arranged the meeting with Carmel Markham.

1. The resolution of what occurred at the meeting with Mr Palermo on 3 January 2019 is only relevant to the assessment of Mr Palermo's credibility. The allegations that he was Robert's close friend, had coffee with Robert every Thursday and avoided questions regarding some investment Robert was not shown to have in a shopping centre or syndicate appear to have been intended to call into question his denial that he witnessed Robert's will.
2. Assessing the evidence of Mr Palermo as against that of Alison, Stephanie and Rose-Marie as to what occurred at the meeting at his office over the Christmas period in 2018, I have no hesitation in accepting Mr Palermo's version of events. The questioning of Mr Palermo in cross‑examination which suggested that he or Robert had made some investment in a shopping centre or syndicate was unsupported by evidence. The allegation implicit in Alison's evidence that Mr Palermo was covering something up in that regard was wholly unsupported by evidence, and I entirely accept his denial of those matters.
3. In this regard, Rose-Marie's evidence of what occurred at the meeting is telling. She corroborated Mr Palermo's evidence that Mr Palermo said at the meeting that he did not know about a will but would check with his staff when he returned from holiday.
4. Further, I accept Rose-Marie's evidence that the meeting ended abruptly once Alison asked Mr Palermo about a shopping centre syndicate that Robert was involved in. Mr Palermo's evidence was that he was not in a position to discuss Robert's affairs until an executor or the Public Trustee was appointed, as was to be expected of a professional man expected to keep client confidentiality.
5. Mr Palermo was therefore not in a position to answer questions regarding Robert's affairs. Moreover, he was due to go overseas on holiday the next day, so it would not be surprising that he did not wish to become involved in a lengthy conversation regarding Robert's assets, in respect of which he regarded himself as owing obligations of confidentiality.
6. As to whether Mr Palermo told the sisters at any time that he was a close friend of Robert and had coffee with him every Thursday, the suggestion that they were close friends is inconsistent with Mr Palermo's evidence that he terminated Robert as a client due to his conduct towards Victoria, evidence supported by Victoria's evidence that Robert had a falling out with Mr Palermo.
7. Further, to the extent that there is any contest between the evidence of Mr Palermo and that of the sisters, I prefer the evidence of Mr Palermo on the grounds that he presented as an honest and credible witness, and had no apparent reason not to tell the truth.

Stephanie and Alison's communications with Mrs Markham after 2 January 2019

1. I find that Stephanie did not instruct Mrs Markham that Mrs Markham was not to refer to Victoria as Robert's de facto partner in his death certificate, for a series of reasons.
2. First, I have already found that Mrs Markham did not complete the various documents other than in accordance with the information provided to her in the meeting on 2 January 2019.
3. Second, the allegations made by Alison and Stephanie on oath prior to trial that Stephanie was denied any opportunity to read the documents she signed that day cannot survive Stephanie's admissions in cross-examination to the effect that she was given every opportunity to read those documents before she signed them, and simply did not do so.
4. Again, it is implausible that Mrs Markham would have included information that was not disclosed to her in the meeting in those documents and then risk discovery of her having done so by giving Stephanie every chance to read them.
5. Nor are Alison's and Stephanie's allegations consistent with Rose‑Marie's evidence in cross-examination that Mrs Markham was 'lovely' during the meeting, a description of her conduct wholly inconsistent with any attempt by Mrs Markham to impose upon Stephanie to do something she did not want to do.
6. Third, Stephanie's evidence at trial was not that she was forced to sign the Application to Cremate form, which referred to Roberts's relationship status as 'de facto', but that she was denied the opportunity to further consider the 'temporary draft death certificate particulars'.
7. I find that Mrs Markham asked Stephanie a series of questions during the course of the meeting to obtain the information ultimately inserted in the draft particulars of death certificate created on 7 January 2019. I infer that Mrs Markham took a note of that information, because the draft document forwarded to Stephanie was likely prepared by a third person on 7 January 2019, but I find Mrs Markham did not prepare any document for Stephanie's approval in the meeting itself.
8. There was no evidence, other than Stephanie's assertion, that information was required in order to arrange Robert's funeral. Mrs Markham was not cross-examined at all about what information was required for that to occur. There is nothing to support any finding to the effect that Mrs Markham pressured Stephanie in any way regarding the information ultimately included in the 7 January 2019 document, and I find that Mrs Markham did not do so.
9. Fourth, it was telling that Stephanie was unable to identify how and when she instructed Mrs Markham, as she and Alison swore she had, that 'under no circumstances was Victoria's name is to be listed on [her] father's death certificate' prior to 14 January 2019.
10. I note that, although Stephanie asserted that Lia was contacting her about the death certificate as of 7 January 2019, there was nothing to suggest that the draft particulars were forwarded to Lia prior to 14 January 2019, when they were emailed by Mrs Markham to them both.
11. Fifth, the email correspondence between Mrs Markham and Stephanie over 14 and 15 January 2019 is simply inconsistent with Mrs Markham having ever been instructed in the terms alleged by Alison and Stephanie.
12. Mrs Markham's first email of 14 January 2019 sought the approval of both Victoria (through Lia) and Stephanie of the draft particulars.
13. Mrs Markham's conduct is entirely consistent with having been told on 2 January 2019 that Victoria was Robert's de facto. Moreover, she held the Application for Permit to Cremate Form, signed by Stephanie, which stated that Robert was in a de facto relationship at the time of his death.
14. There is no reference in any of Stephanie's communications to Alison to the inclusion of Victoria as Robert's de facto being incorrect. Stephanie's initial complaint to Alison was that Lia had requested the issue of the death certificate.
15. Mrs Markham fully disclosed not once, but twice, that she intended to apply for the issue of the death certificate in terms of the draft forwarded to both Lia and Stephanie for approval. Of course, if Victoria was Robert's de facto at the time of his death, which she had been told he was, Victoria was Robert's nearest surviving relative and the person entitled to instruct Mrs Markham regarding the issue of his death certificate.
16. I find that there was a conversation which occurred between Mrs Markham, Alison and Stephanie about the request to issue the death certificate after 1.41 pm on 14 January 2019, but I reject Alison's and Stephanie's evidence that they instructed Mrs Markham not to include Victoria's name in the death certificate in that conversation or made complaint about it.
17. I find that Alison or Stephanie asked in that conversation why Mrs Markham's email sent at 1.41 pm that day had also been sent to a lawyer's email address, and that Mrs Markham either explained why she had done so in that conversation or said that she would let them know.
18. Mrs Markham then forwarded the email from Victoria's solicitors to Stephanie at 7.05pm that night. The contents of that email,[631] addressed to 'Stephanie and Ali' and advising them to 'try not to stress', are inconsistent with any instruction having been given by them to Mrs Markham to the effect asserted by them, and I find that they did not do so. Stephanie forwarded that email without comment to Alison at 7.25 pm that night.
19. That finding is supported by the fact that Mrs Markham continued to forward her emails to Lia regarding the issue of the death certificate to Stephanie on 15 January 2019, and the failure by Stephanie to take any step to prevent the issue of the certificate.
20. Sixth, both Alison and Stephanie gave evidence that they did not understand what the term 'de facto' meant at various times. While I accept that they may not have known of the statutory definition of a 'de facto relationship' or the legal consequences of the existence of such a relationship without the benefit of legal advice, at the times relevant to these proceedings the concept of a de facto relationship was commonly known in Australian society, and had been for many years. The statutory concept of a 'de facto relationship' originated in popular speech.[632]
21. In 2007, the Queensland Court of Appeal stated:[633]

The expression 'de facto partners' evolved as both a comparison and a contrast with the relationship of marriage. A 'de facto relationship' was, in ordinary parlance, a relationship which exhibited the characteristics of mutual commitment familiar in the relationship of marriage, save for the solemnities involved in the formal exchange of wedding vows between a man and a woman.

1. Similarly, in Thompson v Public Trustee of New South Wales,[634] 2010, Hallen AsJ said, in a passage quoted with approval on a number of occasions since,[635] that:[636]

The statutory concept of 'a de facto relationship' is not far removed from the common understanding of such a concept in Australian society. The expression 'de facto relationship' evolved, in common parlance, as both a comparison, and a contrast, with the relationship of marriage. A 'de facto relationship' was, in ordinary parlance, a relationship which exhibited the characteristics of mutual commitment familiar in a relationship of marriage, save for the solemnities involved in a formal exchange of wedding vows.

1. The statutory definition of a 'de facto relationship' was introduced in Western Australia in 2002.[637]
2. I find that Rose-Marie, Alison and Stephanie understood that Robert and Victoria were in a de facto relationship, as that term was and is generally understood in the community, at the time of his death, and that Victoria or Stephanie told Mrs Markham that was the case at the meeting on 2 January 2019.
3. I further find that it is probable that the sisters did not understand the legal significance of recognising that Robert and Victoria were in a de facto relationship when they did so, and that they subsequently sought to have the death certificate altered in the mistaken belief that its existence was fatal to their success in these proceedings.
4. In that regard, there was no evidence in these proceedings to suggest that Victoria, Lia or Mr Varelis acted improperly in any way in relation to the issue of the death certificate, other than the letter from Mareena Purslowe dated 9 August 2002. I have given that letter no weight for the reasons already identified. There being no evidence to support them, I find that those allegations of misconduct were without merit.

1. I accept Victoria's evidence that she moved to 11 Dwyer Street in or about 1998 and lived there with Robert thereafter, and of the nature of their relationship. I accept her evidence, unchallenged by cross‑examination, that she and Robert had a sexual relationship until that was no longer possible due to Robert's health, and that they remained intimate thereafter until his death.
2. No witness mentioned Robert ever showing the slightest surprise at Victoria being present in the Dwyer Street house.
3. I accept the evidence of each of Ms Letizia, Mr Gobetti, Mrs Fulton, Mr Bumbak, Mr Rando, Mr Varelis, Ms Tyers, Ms Pompilio and, to a lesser extent, Mr Tupuo to the effect that they each observed Robert and Victoria to be in a genuine, long-term, marriage-like relationship.
4. I accept Mr Shearwood's evidence that he observed Victoria at 11 Dwyer Street regularly over a period commencing in or about 1998 until Robert's death.
5. I find that the various birthday, Valentine's Day and Christmas cards exchanged between Robert and Victoria evidence a loving and committed relationship between them over the years, consistent with Victoria's evidence, and that was so notwithstanding that Robert was violent and abusive towards Victoria at times.
6. I further find that their relationship was acknowledged in the slideshow shown at Robert's funeral, which included photographs of them together, and by the condolence messages published following Robert's death.
7. The only evidence that suggests Robert and Victoria were not in a de facto relationship are statements said to have been made by Robert to the effect that he would not enter into another relationship after his divorce, the opinions of a number of witnesses to the effect that Victoria did not live at 11 Dwyer Street because the house was unfinished or lacked a feminine touch, and the documents which record Victoria's address as being other than 11 Dwyer Street, although those documents cover the same period as those showing her address to be 11 Dwyer Street.
8. I find that, whatever Robert may have told others about his relationship with Victoria, he made no secret of their relationship with those he regarded as friends.
9. Further, when Robert was asked to complete documents describing his marital status, he stated he was in a de facto relationship, and did so consistently over, at the least, the years 2009 to 2018, the last being his 2017 tax return he signed a few months prior to his death.
10. I reject the assertions that Robert only did so in order to gain some advantage on each occasion. The existence of any advantage to Robert was not supported by evidence, and amounted to no more than speculation in each case. In my judgment, the witnesses who advanced those propositions demonstrated no more than that they were unreasonably unwilling to recognise that Robert had acknowledged Victoria as his partner and had treated her as such.
11. When Robert was required or requested to formally state his relationship status the evidence is that he identified Victoria as his partner or de facto. There is no document in evidence where Robert did not refer to his relationship with Victoria, where the document itself requested or required disclosure as to whether he was in a relationship.
12. While Robert's statements to institutions like hospitals, health insurance providers, the Australian Taxation Office and banks as to the nature of his relationship with Victoria are not determinative, the documents containing those statements are strong evidence of his perception of his relationship, and contrary to whatever he is claimed to have said to others.
13. The fact that various people did not see Victoria at Dwyer Street when they visited Robert there does not outweigh the evidence of their relationship together. That is particularly so when regard is had to the fact that Victoria worked full time from approximately 1998, so that it is to be expected that she would not have been at home for much of the day.
14. Nor, in my judgment, does the evidence of a number of witnesses called by Alison to the effect that individuals did not believe Victoria or, more generally, any woman to be living at Dwyer Street because of the unfinished state of the house or, in that person's opinion, the lack of evidence of a female touch or female belongings there, call into question that Robert and Victoria were in a de facto relationship, for two reasons.
15. The first is that, for that opinion to have any substance, the witness would have had to have inspected the whole of the house, and no witness gave evidence of having done so.
16. The second is that the evidence of those opinions, taken as a whole, does not outweigh the cogency of the documentary evidence of their relationship over many years, the evidence of their relationship from those that Robert regarded as friends, the evidence of Mr Shearwood and the public recognition of their relationship by members of Robert's family contained in the condolence messages published upon Robert's death.
17. It is unnecessary, in coming to a finding that Robert and Victoria were in a de facto relationship at the time of his death, to place any substantial weight upon Stephanie's acceptance of that status in signing the Application for Permit to Cremate form. However, that document, together with the Christmas cards given by Alison and Rose-Marie to Robert and Victoria on Christmas Day 2018, demonstrates that each of the sisters recognised Robert and Victoria's relationship at the time of Robert's death.
18. Ultimately, there was no evidence adduced by Alison which called the fact Victoria lived at 11 Dwyer Street for many years into real question. No person purported to have seen Victoria living at her mother's home in Matlock Street, at her Hector Street property or the Padbury property she owns together with her son. Victoria's tax returns and real estate agent's records showed the Hector Street property to have been rented since 2005, and the house in which she acquired a half interest was, on her unchallenged evidence, occupied by her son.
19. Viewed objectively, Ms Italiano's evidence, which Alison identified as showing Victoria lived elsewhere, fell far short of doing so.
20. Nor was there evidence of any substance to support a finding that Robert had a relationship with any person other than Victoria after 1998. Even if there had been, that would not itself prevent a finding that Victoria was Robert's de facto partner.
21. The existence of documents showing Victoria to have postal addresses other than 11 Dwyer Street and her driver's licence showing a different address for the period in question was, in my view, adequately explained by Victoria. I accept her explanations in respect of each of those classes of documents.
22. The one aspect of the Victoria's and Robert's relationship which might be thought to be inconsistent with a marriage like relationship was that they maintained separate finances, which extended to the separate ownership of real property. However, as is expressly recognised in s 13A(2) of the Interpretation Act, the degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangements for financial support between two persons is an indicator but not an essential element of a de facto relationship between them.
23. In this regard, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia has recognised the observation that 'financial independence is not uncommon in modern relationships including marriages' to be 'undoubtedly true'.[638]
24. The fact that Robert and Victoria maintained separate accounts and retained their separate ownership of their real property assets is to be assessed in the context of Robert and Victoria contributed to their relationship differently, with Robert meeting the household expenses and Victoria performing the bulk, if not all, of the housework and other domestic chores. Further, I accept Victoria's evidence that there was not necessarily any correlation between what she spent on groceries and the amounts Robert gave her, and of Victoria having given not insubstantial sums to Robert on a few occasions when he needed money.
25. In my judgment, the fact that Robert and Victoria maintained separate finances is not sufficient to prevent a finding that they were de facto partners, when the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports a finding that Robert and Victoria lived in a committed, marriage-like relationship for over 20 years until his death in 2019.
26. I therefore find that Victoria was Robert's de facto as at the date of his death, and had been for at least two years prior to that date.

1. In Cahill v Rhodes,[639] Campbell J explained that the test for admitting a lost will is as follows:

First, it must be established that there actually was a Will, or a document purporting to embody the testamentary intentions of a deceased person; second, it must be shown that that document revoked all previous Wills, third, the presumption that when a Will is not produced it has been destroyed must be overcome, fourth, there must be evidence of its terms, and fifth, there must be either evidence of due execution or that the deceased person intended the document to constitute his or her Will.

1. In Orifici; Re the Estate of Rosario Giuseppe Orifici v Orifici[640] Hasluck J observed:

In addressing these various issues, the decided cases indicate that the standard of proof to be applied is the civil standard of proof, namely, proof on the balance of probabilities... However, it seems that in applying the balance of probabilities standard the Court must be vigilant, being fully cognisant of the dangers of error and fraud, and the gravity of the consequences flowing from any finding made... (citations omitted).

1. The particulars to [9] of the counterclaim limited Alison's case to a document, signed by Robert, Charles (Chum) Taylor and John Palermo, made using the inner sheet of an Australia Post Will Pack.
2. Alison's written opening submissions conceded that Alison was not able to adduce direct evidence concerning the due execution of the will.[641] Her position was that the reference to 'John Palermo' by both Ms Smith and Mr Sussa was a reference to 'Mr Palermo Senior', John Palermo's father. It was said that Mr Palermo Senior was also an accountant and a friend of Robert who died in 2010.[642]
3. Notwithstanding how Alison opened her case, Alison sought to prove that the alleged will had been witnessed by Mr Palermo Snr's son, also John Palermo.
4. Alison has failed to do so. I have rejected the evidence of both Ms Smith and Mr Sussa for the reasons identified above. Further, I have accepted the evidence of Mr Palermo, to the effect that he did not witness a will made by Robert.
5. Having rejected the evidence of both Ms Smith and Mr Sussa, there is no evidence that Robert made the 2008 will as pleaded by Alison, or that there was a document in the terms pleaded by Alison.
6. I accordingly find that claim fails.
7. Alison's alternative case was that, if the 2008 will was not formally executed, it constituted a valid will by operation of s 32 of the Wills Act.
8. Considering this aspect of the claim, there is a further difficulty, arising out of the manner in which Alison's case was presented. There is no evidence of the terms of the proforma will form contained in the Australia Post Will Pack in 2008. A 2016 version of that pack was tendered,[643] but only on the basis that it was a document shown to Ms Smith and Mr Sussa after they had given instructions for the preparation of their affidavits.[644]
9. There is therefore no evidence of what were the terms of the printed proforma will in any version of the Australia Post Will Pack sold in 2008.
10. A second difficulty is that Alison's case was not opened on the basis that, if the court did not accept that Robert's will was made in terms of the 2008 will, it was open to find that some other document constituted Robert's will. Nor, in my judgment, was that case pleaded by Alison, the plea in [11] of the counterclaim being a reference to the will pleaded in [9], as there particularised.
11. If the evidence of Ms Smith and Mr Sussa is put to one side, there is no evidence of the terms of the 2008 will or the existence of a document in those terms. Alison's claim that the document should be given effect as a valid will pursuant to s 32 of the Wills Act therefore fails.
12. In any event, for the reasons stated above, Mr Combley's evidence does not show that Robert made a will in 2008, but only that Robert said, while they were drinking, that he intended to do so. I have also rejected the evidence of Ms Wenn and Ms Brnjich, for the reasons stated above.
13. It is therefore not open to find that there was a document, other than the 2008 will as pleaded, to the effect that Robert left his estate to be divided equally between his three daughters. It is accordingly unnecessary to decide whether, in Western Australia, s 32(3) of the Wills Act requires that the document said to embody the testamentary intentions of the deceased must be before the court in order for the court to have regard to hearsay evidence as to the deceased's testamentary objections.[645]

1. The counterclaim having failed, Robert died intestate.
2. As already noted, in the ordinary case the person having the greatest interest in the estate is appointed administrator. In this case, that is Victoria.
3. By her defence, Alison sought to establish that Victoria was disqualified from acting as administrator, for failing to correspond with the defendants. The pleaded matters were not the subject of evidence at the trial, other than Victoria failing to agree to all three sisters being present for the opening of the locked home safe, not on 6 January 2019 as pleaded, but at a later date. Even then, one of the sisters was present when the safe was opened.
4. In any event, I am satisfied that none of the matters pleaded in paragraph 3(c)(iv) of the defence, even if they had been established, would disqualify Victoria from appointment as administrator.
5. By her counterclaim, Alison sought appointment as administrator of Robert's estate.
6. I have found, amongst other things, that Alison made serious allegations of fraudulent conduct against Victoria, her daughter and her brother regarding their dealings with Mareena Purslowe that were entirely unsubstantiated by evidence, and made a misleading statutory declaration in support of some of those allegations.
7. In my judgment, the level of animus demonstrated by Alison towards Victoria and her family by that conduct is such that she is not an appropriate candidate for appointment as administrator, and I decline to appoint her.
8. For these reasons, I will:

(a) declare that Victoria was in a de facto relationship with Robert for at least two years prior to his death on 25 December 2018;

(b) appoint Victoria as administrator of Robert's estate; and

(c) dismiss the counterclaim.

1. I will hear from counsel as to the precise form of the orders and as to costs.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[1] Curwood v Codde [2024] WASC 378 [8]; Smith v Tamworth [1997] NSWSC 197; [1997] 41 NSWLR 680, 693.

[2] G v O [2022] WASC 23 [122] (G v O).

[30] In the context of the transfer of a 2003 BMW car to Victoria in August 2015: Exhibit 56.

[31] See Sociètè d'Avances Commerciales (Sociètè Anonyme Egyptienne) v Merchants' Marine Insurance Co (The 'Palitana') (1924) 20 Lloyds Law Rep 140, 152; Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 [30].

[32] Fabre v Arenales (1992) 27 NSWLR 437 451D.

[33] Ali v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 183 [112].

[34] HSH Hotels (Aust) Ltd v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 302, [87]; Bulstrode v Trimble [1970] VicRp 104; [1970] VR 840, 849.

[35] Hughes v National Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd [1979] HCA 2; (1979) 143 CLR 134, 137 ‑ 138 (Hughes).

[36] Gair v Bowers [1909] HCA 57; (1909) 9 CLR 510, 521, 526, 530.

[37] Fitzroy River Ltd Liability Company v Tucker as joint and several administrator of Yeeda Pastoral Company Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2025] WASCA 118 [112].

[39] Blacket v Barnett [2017] NSWSC 1032 [243] - [258].

[53] s 39F(1)(b)(i), Evidence Act 1906 (WA).

[54] s 39F(1)(b)(ii), Evidence Act 1906 (WA).

[55] s 39F(1)(b)(ii), Evidence Act 1906 (WA).

[56] See Holland v Jones [1917] HCA 26; (1917) 23 CLR 149, 153.

[223] See the definition of 'document' in s 79B.

[224] Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8 (1959) 101 CLR 298.

[416] ts 798. It seems Stephanie removed the box of photographs from the house.

[538] Ms Italiano was living in Joondanna at the time of the trial: ts 925.

[543] Exhibit AA21, [21.1] - [21.3].

[590] Second Defendant and Counterclaimant's Outline of Opening Submissions filed 30 October 2024 [100].

[591] Second Defendant and Counterclaimant's Outline of Opening Submissions filed 30 October 2024 [101].

[627] There was no objection to the question.

[632] KQ v HAE [2006] QCA 489; [2007] 2 Qd R 32 [18] (KQ v HAE).

[634] Thompson v Public Trustee of New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 1137 (Thompson).

[635] See Irwin v Pamplin [2017] NSWSC 1477 [35]; Bezjak v Watt [2018] NSWSC 199 [42]; Pollock v New South Wales Trustee & Guardian [2022] NSWSC 923 [400].

[637] See s 85, Acts Amendment (Lesbian and Gay Law Reform Act 2002 (WA).

[638] Delamare v Aspey [2014] FAMFAC 218 [19].

[639] Cahill v Rhodes [2002] NSWSC 561 [55].

[640] Orifici; Re the Estate of Rosario Giuseppe Orifici v Orifici [2007] WASC 74 [59].

[641] Second Defendant and Counterclaimant's Outline of Opening Submissions filed 30 October 2024 [100].

[642] Second Defendant and Counterclaimant's Outline of Opening Submissions [101]. Mr Palermo's evidence was that his father died in 2015.

[645] As to which see Re Ralston, Supreme Court of New South Wales, 2 Sept 1996, unreported, BC9604329 and Payten v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [2005] NSWSC 345 [88] - [89], noting that the Uniform Evidence Law does not apply in Western Australia.