Estate Liam Rowan Dillon [2023] QSC 27 [2023] 10 QLR

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Estate Liam Rowan Dillon [2023] QSC 27 PARTIES: VIRGINIA CORAL MAIDEN (Applicant ) v JANE GRIMLEY (Respondent ) FILE NO/S: 1147/22 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Rockhampton DELIVERED ON: 22 February 2023 DELIVERED AT: Rockhampton HEARING DATE: 3 February 2023 JUDGE: Crow J ORDER: 1. Subject to the formal requirements of the Registrar, that letters of administration in intestacy for the estate of Liam Rowan Dillon be issued to Virginia Coral Maiden. CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION – INTESTACY AND DISTRIBUTION ON INTESTACY – ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE – ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS – CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING PRIORITY– where the applicant made an application for letters of administration in intestacy and the respondent lodged a caveat against the grant of letters of administration – respondent filed own application for letters of administration in intestacy – whether the respondent was a spouse of the deceased at the time of his death pursuant to section 32DA of the Acts Interpretations Act 1954 (Qld). COUNSEL: M Rothery for the applicant T Arnold for the respondent SOLICITORS: Rees R & Sydney Jones for the applicant Purcell & Associates for the respondent -- 1 of 15 -- [1] Liam Rowan Dillon passed away on 19 September 2020 aged 29 years. Mr Dillon’s mother, Virginia Coral Maiden, made an application for letters of administration in intestacy on 7 September 2022. On 18 November 2022, Jane Mary Grimley lodged a caveat against the grant of letters of administration in intestacy in favour of Ms Maiden and also filed her own application for letters of administration in intestacy. [2] Ms Grimley applies on the basis that she was Mr Dillon’s surviving spouse. [3] Section 6(3) of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) provides that a grant of letters of administration of an estate of a deceased person can be made to such person as the court may think fit. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 610(1) provides for a descending order of priority of persons to whom the court may grant letters of administration on intestacy, however, r 610(3) confirms the general statutory discretion under s 6(3) of the Succession Act, namely that the court has a discretion to grant letters of administration to any person in priority to any other person mentioned in sub-rule (1). [4] In this case, Ms Grimley alleges she is entitled to priority as the deceased’s surviving spouse under r 610(1)(a) in priority to Ms Maiden as the deceased’s mother under r 610(1)(d). [5] “Spouse” is defined in r 596 as follows: spouse, in relation to a deceased person and despite the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, section 32DA(6), means a person who, at the time of the deceased’s death— (a) was the deceased’s husband or wife; or (b) had been the deceased’s de facto partner for a continuous period of at least 2 years ending on the deceased’s death. [6] Section 32DA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) defines a de facto partner as follows: 32DA Meaning of de facto partner (1) In an Act, a reference to a de facto partner is a reference to either 1 of 2 persons who are living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis but who are not married to each other or related by family. -- 2 of 15 -- 3 (2) In deciding whether 2 persons are living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, any of their circumstances may be taken into account, including, for example, any of the following circumstances— (a) the nature and extent of their common residence; (b) the length of their relationship; (c) whether or not a sexual relationship exists or existed; (d) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangement for financial support; (e) their ownership, use and acquisition of property; (f) the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life, including the care and support of each other; (g) the care and support of children; (h) the performance of household tasks; (i) the reputation and public aspects of their relationship. (3) No particular finding in relation to any circumstance is to be regarded as necessary in deciding whether 2 persons are living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. (4) Two persons are not to be regarded as living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis only because they have a common residence. (5) For subsection (1)— (a) the gender of the persons is not relevant; and (b) a person is related by family to another person if the person and the other person would be within a prohibited relationship within the meaning of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwlth), section 23B, if they were parties to a marriage to which that section applies. (6) In an Act enacted before the commencement of this section, a reference to a spouse includes a reference to a de facto partner as defined in this section unless the Act expressly provides to the contrary. [7] In the present application, an issue of fact arises as to whether Ms Grimley was a spouse as defined by r 596 and s 32DA of the Acts Interpretation Act, that is, whether as a fact Ms Grimley had been Mr Dillon’s de facto partner for a continuous period of at least 2 years ending on Mr Dillon’s death on 19 September 2020. -- 3 of 15 -- 4 [8] Ms Maiden does not dispute that Ms Grimley was a de factor partner of her son for a long period of time, however, she submits as the relationship had ended prior to her son’s passing, then Ms Grimley is not a spouse as defined. [9] Ms Grimley attests and I accept that she did rent a residence with Mr Dillon from some time in 2011 until the date of his death, 19 September 2020. Ms Grimley attests that she and Mr Dillon had their own vehicles, their own separate bank accounts and their own pets. Ms Grimley attests and I accept that she and Mr Dillon would share expenses including rent. Ms Grimley swears that Mr Dillon had emotional issues and was possessive in their relationship and that “later in the relationship, things were not good”. Ms Grimley says that she and Mr Dillon were fighting and so Ms Grimley formed the view that she needed to leave the relationship1. [10] Ms Grimley says that she would go to her parents’ residence in Blackwater overnight or for a few days but never removed her belongings from the rental house in Emerald. Ms Grimley says she never intended permanently to separate2. Ms Grimley says that soon after 20 August 2020, she had a conversation with Mr Dillon in which she told him that she needed some time apart3. Ms Grimley then deposed4 “It was not my intention that we would be separated indefinitely but I felt he had to deal with his own problems if we were to have any future.” [11] Ms Grimley says that after that conversation they continued to reside together and they continued to share the same bed. [12] It appears that in the week prior to 17 August 2020, Mr Dillon was stood down from his employment as a bulldozer operator at BMA Blackwater. Ms Grimley was not told by Mr Dillon that he was stood down from his employment until she received a text message from her father who also worked at BMA Blackwater5. [13] In a text to Mr Dillon’s sister, Shannon on 17 August 2020, Ms Grimley texted “Hi Shannon I want to fill you in on what’s going on with Liam. Please do not let this come back to me. I am legitimately worried about Liam and I need to get out. So he lost his job last week, he’s been telling 1 Paragraph 66 of Affidavit of Jane Mary Grimley filed 18 November 2022. 2 Paragraph 67 of Affidavit of Jane Mary Grimley filed 18 November 2022. 3 Paragraph 72 of Affidavit of Jane Mary Grimley filed 18 November 2022. 4 Paragraph 74 of Affidavit of Jane Mary Grimley filed 18 November 2022. 5 See Exhibit JMG7. -- 4 of 15 -- 5 lies. All of it is lies. He was telling his boss he took 20 prescription medication. … He’s a danger to himself and others. …” [14] Shannon Dillon’s response was “He told me something about this. Said he didn’t cope with the break up so he didn’t sleep or eat and got sent home. Reckoned he needed a doctor’s certificate to get back…” [15] Shannon’s reply indicating the breakup of the relationship was included in Ms Grimley’s material. On 17 August 2020 after 8pm, Ms Grimley sent a text to Ms Maiden stating “Liam skipped work last night and came home. While I was at Shannon’s he called me and told me that he was at work when he was really at home. He’s being weird and angry. He insisted on sleeping in the bed last night and I just wanted to leave. I hope he sticks to what he tells me. At this stage he is making it worse for himself. I think if this friendship has to work, he needs to leave me alone for a bit… I was just thinking maybe you could convince him to maybe stay at your house for a little?...” [16] These texts are of some importance as they indicate that there had been “a breakup” of the relationship in mid-August 2020 and that it was Ms Grimley’s desire that Mr Dillon not sleep in her bed, and leave the house so their “friendship” had a chance. [17] On 18 September 2020, Ms Grimley emailed a Form 13 quitting the joint residence at 26 Blue Gum Drive. The landlord, Linda Adams, has sworn an affidavit. I accept Ms Adams’ evidence. Ms Adams observed that in tenancy inspections on 15 January 2020, 5 March 2020 and 19 June 2020, Mr Dillon and Ms Grimley appeared to be sharing the same bedroom, however, by August 2020 Ms Adams deposed to several conversations she had with Ms Grimley about Ms Grimley leaving the premises. Exhibit 4 is a text between Ms Grimley and her friend, Tia Closset. Ms Grimley gave evidence that prior to 27 August 2020, she agreed with her friend, Tia Closset, to move out of her residence with Mr Dillon at Blue Gum Drive. Ms Closset informed Ms Grimley that she had found a suitable house and had the application forms, to which Ms Grimley asked her to “Fill them out”. This exhibit also contains an important exchange between Ms Grimley and Ms Closset. Ms Grimley had forwarded Ms Closset the texts she received from her father, Mr Anthony Grimley, which recorded “Hi Jane, just a heads up, Liam was terminated (sacked) last night, not barred. Stay safe, call me if you need help. Hopefully he goes to his dad’s.” After -- 5 of 15 -- 6 Ms Closset read this forwarded text, she texted back to Ms Grimley “Has he said what happened?” to which Ms Grimley replied “Nope, a completely different story. I think I might go to police. He tried to commit suicide at work.” Ms Closset then texted back “Oh my Lord, was that before or after you broke up?” To which Ms Grimley replied “Apparently both”. [18] Exhibit 4 is important because it establishes that prior to 27 August 2020, Ms Grimley had made firm plans to leave the residence at Blue Gum Drive and her friend Ms Closset had in fact found an appropriate house. In terms of the public aspects of the relationship, Ms Grimley had made it plain that she had broken up with Mr Dillon. Ms Grimley was aware, or at least believed, that Mr Dillon was suicidal, she was determined to leave Mr Dillon. [19] In extremely emotional evidence, Ms Grimley said on several occasions she had wanted to separate from Mr Dillon and move out of the premises away from Mr Dillon, but not break up in the sense that if Mr Dillon was able to overcome his mental health problems she may have recommenced her relationship with Mr Dillon. Ms Grimley contended that after 20 August 2020 she had committed to live separately from Mr Dillon but stated that she could in time possibly come back to live with Mr Dillon. [20] There is an absence of medical information as to the precise nature of Mr Dillon’s mental health problems. Ms Grimley believed that Mr Dillon had developed an addiction to prescription painkillers. Ms Grimley explained that Mr Dillon had changed in personality after his shoulder surgeries and he appeared to her to be addicted to prescription painkillers. Ms Grimley believed that Mr Dillon’s attempt to commit suicide while at work was on an overdose of prescription painkillers. [21] Earlier texts from Ms Grimley to Ms Closset as contained in Exhibit 6 are also of some importance. On 20 August 2020, text correspondence commences at 5:48am with Ms Grimley commencing the texts as follows: 5:48am Ms Grimley So Liam rocked up home last night while I was at Shannon’s. He rang me and told me he was at work. He needs to leave the house. He is sleeping in my bed and I don’t want him to.” 7:48am Ms Closset -- 6 of 15 -- 7 “Oh no… did he say why he was sleeping in your bed?” Ms Grimley “Because he needs to make the bed in the spare room. Bullshit excuse. I messaged his mum to see if she could maybe convince him to go to hers.” Ms Closset “He’s probably in denial. Ms Grimley “Yeah he goes just because we are separated doesn’t mean I can’t sleep in the same bed. He was angry last night. Which I knew it would come around to it. I feel like he’s not going to leave me alone.” Ms Closset “Yeah I thought that might happen. Time to move.” Ms Grimley “I knew it would happen. It’s only first night. Do I tell Lauren and Tony. I will if it gets really bad.” [22] Five of the texts of 20 August 2020 show that Ms Grimley had, by that stage, decided to end her de facto relationship with Mr Dillon. The house at 26 Blue Gum Drive had three bedrooms – the main bedroom with an ensuite, the second bedroom, and a third bedroom which Mr Dillon used as an office. Ms Grimley made reference to “her bedroom”, the main bedroom, and not “our bedroom”. She made reference to not wanting Mr Dillon to sleep in her bed. It is plain by 20 August that Ms Grimley was trying to achieve a separation from Mr Dillon, however it appears Mr Dillon was somewhat reluctant. This was verified by Ms Maiden who said that she spoke to her son, Mr Dillon, and encouraged him to accept the fact that his relationship with Ms Grimley was over and to move on. [23] Text messages show Ms Grimley’s firm desire to end the relationship and move on and Mr Dillon’s reluctance to accept that fact. Ms Grimley’s texts reveal that Mr Dillon was angered by the fact that he was required to sleep in a separate bedroom. It seems to me the proper inference from Exhibit 6 is that by 20 August 2020, Ms Grimley and Mr Dillon had separated as a couple, although this is somewhat complicated by Ms Grimley’s evidence that in the four weeks after 20 August 2020, she did have sexual intercourse with Mr Dillon on approximately six occasions. Ms Grimley did not say in that period of a little over a month when those sexual -- 7 of 15 -- 8 encounters occurred, nor in terms of their longer relationship, whether that represented any alteration in their sexual relationship. These issues were not addressed in evidence. [24] It does seem to me in the circumstances, however, that the proper inference is that by 20 August 2020, the sexual relationship between Mr Dillon and Ms Grimley was substantially reduced. Ms Grimley had placed a lock upon the door to the master bedroom and required Mr Dillon to sleep in the spare room. It appears from Exhibit 6 that Mr Dillon did not take kindly to this alteration. [25] Exhibit 5 is the text from Ms Grimley to Ms Closset at 5:49am on 17 September 2020. It records “Hey bro. Depending on the situation about to happen I might have to come stay with you. Liam is still refusing to let me off the lease so Lynda is going to send a notice to leave. I will be filling out my own form to take myself off the lease, despite Liam’s say. I won’t be talking to him any more about it. It’s just going to happen. I think a removalist is a good idea. That way we can do both of us at the same time. Hope you are okay…” [26] The timing of this text is important. It would appear that Lynda Adams sent the Form 13 allowing Ms Grimley to quit the lease on 17 or 18 September. On 18 September, Ms Grimley emailed the Form 13 quitting the least at Blue Gum Drive, not only to Ms Adams but also emailed it to Mr Dillon. It is plain therefore, by Friday 18 September 2020 that the relationship was over. Ms Grimley did not stay at 26 Blue Gum Drive that evening but rather spent the night at her parents’. [27] Ms Grimley had intended to and did attend at a work function in Capella on Saturday 19 September 2020 and it was during that day that Mr Dillon took his own life. [28] Ms Adams deposed that to her observation Ms Grimley did in fact move out of the premises some weeks before 18 September 2020. This is further supported by the observations of a neighbour, Ms Julie Edwards, who observed that Ms Grimley’s car was not much at 26 Blue Gum Drive in the three to four weeks prior to the deceased’s passing. I accept the evidence of Ms Adams and Ms Edwards as they are independent witnesses. -- 8 of 15 -- 9 [29] Importantly in her police statement dated 27 September 2020, Ms Grimley said “Approximately six weeks ago, Liam and I separated. We have had previous periods of separation throughout our relationship.” [30] The admission of Ms Grimley in her police statement of 27 September 2020 of a separation in the relationship in mid-August is consistent with the evidence, which I accept. [31] Ms Grimley says that her admission in paragraph 10 of her police statement was an admission made in error and brought upon by the stress of the circumstances surrounding the passing of Mr Dillon. Whilst I accept that Ms Grimley was stressed at the time she provided her statement, I do not accept that the admission in paragraph 10 that the relationship had ended in mid-August was an error. [32] Danielle Lisa Thompson had been a close friend of Mr Dillon for the 10 years prior to his death. Ms Thompson recalls a period of three to six months in 2012 where she and her partner lived with Mr Dillon and Ms Grimley, then for a further five or six months in mid-2015 Ms Thompson also lived with Mr Dillon and Ms Grimley. [33] Ms Thompson recalls it was in late 2015 when Mr Dillon underwent a shoulder operation and that she was the person who took Mr Dillon to Brisbane for his shoulder operation and cared for him whilst they were in Brisbane. In 2015 when Ms Thompson was living with Mr Dillon and Ms Grimley, Ms Grimley and Mr Dillon maintained separate bedrooms. The living arrangements at both houses were that there was an equal contribution towards household expenses. [34] Ms Thompson who also worked at BMA Blackwater Mine recalled an incident shortly before August where she had a conversation with Mr Dillon at the Blackwater Mine. After the conversation, there was an exchange of text messages. In one such text sent by Mr Dillon to Ms Thompson, apart from Mr Dillon asking for the telephone number of another female that he was interested in, Mr Dillon texted “… I forgot to ask you please not to tell anyone about Jane. She is very ashamed about cheating. I agreed to keep that detail between us. Only a few people even know that we are separated.” [35] In messages that Mr Dillon posted on Facebook Messenger on 11 September 2020, Mr Dillon wrote: “…Had to borrow money to pay rent …” -- 9 of 15 -- 10 [36] Paul Seiuli was a close friend of Mr Dillon, having grown up with him and attended school with him. Mr Seiuli’s affidavit also attaches Facebook Messenger correspondence of 11 September 2020, which records “… My girlfriend of 10 years left me… We split for a month. I should have stayed single. We have had issues over the years but I was always there for her when she needed me. Unfortunately it was a one-way street, there is no hope for us now though. She is off her meds and going full crazy. I guess there is nothing I can do about it but focus on my future.” [37] Mr Dillon visited Mr Seiuli in Townsville in mid-2020 and he observed that on occasions when Mr Dillon went out to nightclubs, Mr Dillon was actively looking for girls to meet. [38] The sister of Mr Dillon, Shannon Dillon, attaches to her affidavit text message correspondence between herself and Ms Grimley. There was a discussion about the breakup between Mr Dillon and Ms Grimley and as a result, Shannon Dillon made an offer that Ms Grimley and her animals could come and stay with her. In the reply text, Ms Grimley said: “…I knew something was not right with him last night. His story was not making sense. He doesn’t need anything because he was a danger to himself and others. Apparently this has been going on longer than the breakup. And they wanted him gone…” [39] On 8 September 2020, there were further text messages which record, amongst other things, Ms Grimley saying “I found a place I’ll be moving in three weeks. Lauren and Tony are helping me a lot.” [40] Ms Maiden has attached to her affidavit several bank statements of Mr Dillon. They show that Mr Dillon registered on a “dating” website on 19 August 2020 and paid for registration on two different dating websites on 15 September 2020. Bank statements also show that Mr Dillon was paying rent, as well as paying for electricity. On 17 September, Mr Dillon repaid his mother $700 for money she had loaned him. Ms Maiden, who resided in Clermont, observed that from about April 2020, when Ms Grimley obtained full time employment in Capella, that Ms Grimley spent far less time in the residence at Blue Gum Drive in Emerald and that from about May 2020 she “rarely stayed in the Blue Gum Drive house.” -- 10 of 15 -- 11 [41] Ms Maiden deposes that throughout the whole time of the rental of the Blue Gum Drive House, Mr Dillon and Ms Grimley maintained separate bedrooms, with the third bedroom being used as an office. I do not accept this evidence as Ms Maiden did not live in the house. However, I do accept Ms Maiden’s evidence that from May 2020, when she visited the Blue Gum Drive house, Ms Grimley was rarely present and that on the odd occasion when she was present, she would not interact, but rather would retreat into her bedroom. Ms Maiden recalls one night when she stayed in the Blue Gum Drive house overnight, that she slept in Mr Dillon’s bedroom while Mr Dillon slept on a recliner chair in the lounge room. [42] Hannah Louise Sweeney, a long-time friend of the deceased, attaches email correspondence that she had with the deceased on 10 September 2020 where the deceased, Mr Dillon, said of his relationship with Ms Grimley that there was “a really bad split”. [43] In S v B6 Dutney J (with whom McPherson JA and Williams JA agreed) said: “[33] De facto relationships are by nature fragile. The robust institution of marriage survives until formally dissolved by legal process, even though the parties are no longer a couple and exhibit none of the observable indicia of a domestic arrangement. It has been recognised, however, that the persistence of those indicia are fundamental to the continuance of a de facto relationship. In Hibberson v George2. Mahoney JA, with whom Hope and McHugh JJA agreed, spoke of the de facto relationship as follows: There is, of course, more to the relevant relationship than living in the same house. But there is, I think, a significant distinction between the relationship of marriage and the instant relationship. The relationship of marriage, being based in law, continues notwithstanding that all of the things for which it was created have ceased. Parties will live in the relationship of marriage notwithstanding that they are separated, without children, and without the exchange of the incidents which the relationship normally involves. The essence of the present relationship lies, not in law, but in a de facto situation. I do not mean by this that cohabitation is essential to its continuance: holidays and the like show this. But where one party determines not to ‘live together’ with the other and in that sense keeps apart, the relationship ceases, even though it be merely, as it was suggested in the present case, to enable the one party or the other to decide whether it should continue. 6 S v B (No 2) [2004] QCA 449 at [33], [48]-[50]. -- 11 of 15 -- 12 […] [48] Applying the passage of Mahoney JA in Hibberson v George, which I set out earlier, a de facto relationship ends when one party decides he or she no longer wishes to live in the required degree of mutuality with the other but to live apart. It does not seem to me that it is necessary to communicate this intention to the other party providing the party that is desirous of ending the relationship acts on his or her decision. I do not think it is necessary that the other party agree with or accept the decision. Once the parties cease to jointly wish to reside together in a genuine domestic relationship, a situation usually ascertained by looking objectively at the whole circumstances of the relationship, the de facto relationship ceases. The relationship ceases even though one party is still anxious to try to save it. [49] In order to bring this claim within the provisions of Pt 19 of the PLA the respondent, who was the plaintiff at trial, needed to prove the existence of the relationship as at 21 December 1999 when the Part commenced. Perhaps because of the appellant’s denial at trial that a de facto relationship had ever existed, the evidence focussed on the creation of the de facto relationship. In any event, apart from events which suggest any such relationship had ceased there is a paucity of evidence as to the nature of the relationship as at 21 December 1999. In this regard there is a difference between a marriage and a de facto relationship. In a marriage, the parties remain married and are presumed to be living as a “couple” unless the party wishing to end the relationship proves a separation for the statutory period. In a de facto situation it is the party asserting the relationship that must prove cohabitation of the required quality. In Pavey v Pavey on which the respondent relied, the Full Court of the Family Court in dealing with what constitutes “separation” between two parties to a marriage who continue to reside in the same residence said at 75,213–75,214: In such cases, without a full explanation of the circumstances, there is an inherent unlikelihood that the marriage has broken down, for the common residence suggests continuing cohabitation. Such cases therefor require evidence that goes beyond inexact proofs, indefinite testimony and indirect inferences. The party or parties alleging separation must satisfy the Court about this by explaining why the parties continued to live under the one roof, and by showing that there has been a change in their relationship, gradual or sudden, constituting a separation. [50] The reverse applies in the case of a de facto relationship in the sense that the party asserting the continuing relationship must prove the positive aspects of the relationship rather than the party asserting separation being required to prove the negatives.” [footnotes omitted] -- 12 of 15 -- 13 [44] In my view, the evidence shows that by mid-August 2020, Ms Grimley was determined not to “live together” with Mr Dillon and in that sense, kept herself apart so that their relationship had ceased. [45] In terms of the circumstances referred to in s 32D(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act, in my view, the evidence supports the conclusion that Mr Dillon and Ms Grimley were not living as a couple on a genuine domestic basis from mid-August 2020 as: (a) They had held a common residence for approximately 9 years, however, during that period at times, as evidenced by Ms Thompson, in 2015 Ms Grimley and Mr Dillon maintained separate bedrooms and from mid-August 2020 at least, Ms Grimley and Mr Dillon maintained separate bedrooms. (b) Whilst therefore there was a long-term (approximately 9 years) relationship, the nature and extent of the common residence varied from circumstances of sharing a bed to maintaining separate bedrooms. I accept that by mid-August 2020, Ms Grimley had placed a lock upon the main bedroom at the residence of Blue Gum Drive and Mr Dillon was required to and did sleep in a separate bedroom for most of the time from mid-August 2020 onwards. (c) I accept Ms Grimley’s evidence that there was a sexual relationship between Ms Grimley and Mr Dillon after 20 August 2020 in that they had sexual intercourse on five or six occasions, however, as discussed above, the inference is that that represented a decrease in their usual sexual relationship due to their strained emotional circumstances. (d) There is no evidence to support a finding that there was financial dependence between Mr Dillon and Ms Grimley. Mr Dillon earned significantly more than Ms Grimley however he had lost his employment (or at least ceased being paid) by mid-August 2020. The bank accounts attached to Ms Maiden’s affidavit shows that despite his loss of employment, Mr Dillon had sufficient monies in his bank (from his tax return and borrowings from Ms Maiden) to financially support himself. (e) Mr Dillon and Ms Grimley, it would appear, did not have joint property, but bought their own motor vehicles and chattels into the relationship and took them at the conclusion of their relationship. -- 13 of 15 -- 14 (f) There is not any significant evidence as to the performance of household tasks. (g) Mr Dillon and Ms Grimley did not have any children. (h) An important feature against the continuation of a de facto relationship is that both Ms Grimley and Mr Dillon had publicly acknowledged to their friends that the relationship had ceased. Ms Grimley was determined to move out and had acquired a separate residence and Mr Dillon had actively sought another female partner. [46] By mid-August 2020 there was no mutual commitment to a shared life, including the care and support of each other. As Ms Grimley stated, their relationship was over, and she was moving out. Ms Grimley gave evidence that their relationship may have been re-established in time, but only if Mr Dillon was able to overcome his mental health difficulties. At least by mid-August 2020, Ms Grimley knew that Mr Dillon was in a precarious state – she believed him to be suicidal and she believed him to be addicted to prescription drugs, she was determined to and did leave Mr Dillon. At that point, there was no mutual commitment to a shared life. [47] The respondent argues that what had occurred in August and September of 2020 was merely a temporary separation and that “illness and separations that follow are common occurrences in committed relationships – and have found to be not determinative of break downs.” [48] I accept that Ms Grimley’s intention to physically separate is not of itself destructive of her de facto relationship with Mr Dillon. A short term break up does not mean that the de facto relationship would not continue. The difficulty for Ms Grimley is that there is no evidence to suggest that the breakup was to be a short term breakup. The evidence is to the contrary. [49] In paragraph 74 of her affidavit Ms Grimley makes it plain she and Mr Dillon had in fact separated and that she and Mr Dillon would not be reconciling unless he was able to overcome his illness. [50] The evidence that I accept leads me to conclude that by late August 2020, Mr Dillon and Ms Grimley did not have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of others. Ms Grimley was not committed to a shared life with Mr Dillon and -- 14 of 15 -- 15 Mr Dillon was reluctantly accepting their relationship was over. Mr Dillon had, for some months, commenced the process of looking for another partner. As Ms Grimley frankly conceded, she and Mr Dillon may have got back together in the future although she could not be sure. What was plain was that at the very least Ms Grimley required Mr Dillon to “sort himself out” which seems to me to be a reference to Ms Grimley’s belief that Mr Dillon was addicted to prescription drugs and had mental health issues which required treatment. This could not be thought to be a simple process which could be achieved in a short time frame. Mr Dillon had been under the care of a psychiatrist for some time and, to Ms Grimley’s observation, was getting worse. As Ms Grimley was at pains to point out, this was a matter that she required Mr Dillon to overcome by himself. It was not something that would be faced as a couple within the context of a shared life as a couple. [51] The evidence, which I accept, supports the accuracy of Ms Grimley’s admission at paragraph 10 of her police statement of 27 September 2020 that it was in mid-August 2020 that her relationship with Mr Dillon had ended. I conclude therefore that Ms Grimley was not the de facto partner of Mr Dillon for a continuous period of at least 2 years, ending on Mr Dillon’s death. It is appropriate therefore that letters of administration on intestacy be granted to Virginia Coral Maiden. -- 15 of 15 --