Re Hammett[2023] QSC 249

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   HENRY J: In 2003, Richard Hammett and Shirley Dawson commenced a de facto relationship, Ms Dawson moving into Mr Hammett’s house at Mount Isa.  Four of Ms Dawson’s children also lived there over the years.  In 2016, one of her sons, Mark, committed suicide at Cloncurry.  Ms Dawson then ceased residing at Mr Hammett’s house, feeling unable, in her grief, to continue living in the same house where her deceased son had grown up.  Ms Dawson and Mr Hammett continued their relationship, but she did not resume residing at his house prior to his death last year. 
2. [2]
   Mr Hammett died intestate.  Whether Ms Dawson is entitled to an interest in his estate turns upon whether she continued to be Mr Hammett’s de facto partner prior to his death, notwithstanding that she had ceased living at his house six years earlier. 
3. [3]
   Ms Dawson’s only potential entitlement to any part of the estate, pursuant to the intestacy rules, would derive from her being the surviving spouse of Mr Hammett, per schedule 2, Succession Act 1981 (Qld).  Section 5AA Succession Act relevantly defines “spouse” in the context of a de facto relationship in the following terms:

“5AA who is a person’s spouse

(1) generally, a person’s spouse is the person’s–

 …

(b) de facto partner, as defined in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (the AIA), section 32DA;

…

(2) however, a person is a “spouse” of a deceased person only if on the deceased’s death –

…

(b) the following apply to the person–

(i) the person was the deceased’s de facto partner, as defined in the AIA section 32DA;

(ii) the person and the deceased lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis within the meaning of the AIA section 32DA for a continuous period of at least two years ending on the deceased’s death;

  …”

4. [4]
   How, then does s 32DA inform the meaning of the words “live together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis”?  Section 32DA relevantly provides:

“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 were living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, but who are not married to each other or related by family.

(2) In deciding whether 2 persons live 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–

1. the nature and extent of the common residence;

2. the length of their relationship;

3. whether or not a sexual relationship exists or existed;

4. the degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangement for financial support;

5. their ownership, use and acquisition of property;

6. the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life, including the care and support of each other;

7. the care and support of children;

8. the performance of household tasks;

1. 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 two 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. [5]
   Ms Dawson seeks a declaration that she is the surviving spouse of Mr Hammett.  The making of that declaration is opposed by the first respondent, Rowena Rankine, Mr Hammett’s daughter.  The onus is thus on Ms Dawson to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that she and Mr Hammett had lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis for a continuous period of at least two years ending on his death – see S v B [2005] 1 Qd R 537.
6. [6]
   Importantly, s 32DA(2) contemplates that any of the relevant couple’s circumstances may be taken into account in deciding whether they had been living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis.  The examples listed thereafter are not exclusive of other potentially relevant circumstances in a given case.  That legislative restraint from exhaustively prescribing the circumstances to be taken into account in assessing the existence of a de facto relationship doubtless reflects the variability of the circumstances of human affairs.  Thus even a circumstance as significant as cohabitation is not, of itself, necessary for there to be a de facto relationship.  As much is made clear, as was explained in PY v CY [2005] QCA 247, by s 32DA(3) and (4).
7. [7]
   In the present case, there is no issue that Ms Dawson and Mr Hammett lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis from 2003 to 2016.  However, Ms Rankine contends that they did not continue to do so in the years prior to her father’s death.  She places particular emphasis on the fact that Ms Dawson ceased residing on a full-time basis at Mr Hammett’s residence after March 2016. 
8. [8]
   This Court relevantly observed in KQ v HAE [2007] 2 Qd R 32 at 38 that it would be an exceptional case in which one can conclude that a man and a woman who had never lived together as husband and wife in a common residence and who had never made provision for their mutual support had been, “living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis”.
9. [9]
   Elaborating on why such a case would be exceptional, Keane JA explained in FO v HAF [2007] 2 Qd R 138 at 149 (citations omitted):

“[T]he definition of “de facto relationship” suggests that, usually, the parties should, at some stage, been “living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis.”  It must be shown that the parties have so merged their lives … that they [were], for all practical purposes, living together as a married couple.  The fact that the parties have never lived together in a common abode must be acknowledged to be a strong indicator that they have not, “lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis.”  This indication would be especially significant where the parties have not shared the burden of maintaining a household.”

10. [10]
    In PY v CY [2005] QCA 247, this Court dismissed an appeal against a declaration that the appellant and respondent were in a de facto relationship from September 1988 to December 2000.  In that case, the parties had physically resided together for some years before their continued cohabitation ceased in March 1997, when the female respondent moved to another town, not to leave the appellant, but because she felt constrained to look after her elderly parents.  In circumstances where substantial, regular intimate and other contact continued thereafter, embracing their mutual interest in matters personal, property and financial, this Court considered the primary Judge did not err in concluding that the absence of continual cohabitation after March 1997 of itself did not preclude there being a de facto relationship.
11. [11]
    In the present case, as in PY v CY, Ms Dawson felt constrained to leave Mr Hammett’s residence, where they had cohabitated for 13 years, because of a circumstance unrelated to her relationship with Mr Hammett and, despite the absence of continuing cohabitation, that relationship continued with their lives merged in the same way they otherwise had been during the period of cohabitation. 
12. [12]
    It is convenient to more closely consider the factual detail of the case by reference to the various circumstances listed in s 32DA(2), addressing each by reference to them as subheadings.

The nature and extent of their common residence

13. [13]
    Mr Hammett and Ms Dawson commenced a loving, monogamous, sexual relationship in 2001, and in 2003, Ms Dawson moved into Mr Hammett’s residence at Doughan Terrace, Mount Isa on a permanent basis.  Four of her children from a former relationship also lived at Mr Hammett’s residence for some of the time.  They lived the rest of the time in a shared care arrangement with their birth father.  After their birth father became ill, those four children lived with Ms Dawson and Mr Hammett at his residence on a permanent basis from 2008. 
14. [14]
    As the children reached adulthood, they progressively moved out over the years, with the exception of the youngest child Matthew.  He was still living at the residence with Mr Hammett and Ms Dawson when, in February 2016, one of the older children, Mark, committed suicide in Cloncurry.  The extraordinary emotional distress which this occasioned to Ms Dawson was aggravated by the daily remainders of her seeing his childhood room downstairs at Mr Hammett’s house.  She deposed:

“I felt broken and empty, and I felt like nothing could help me get through the pain.  Even Richie [Mr Hammett] could not help me.  I cried all the time for so long.  I got to the point where I was so exhausted, and I could not bear to be surrounded by things that reminded me of Mark.  I saw his room at Doughan Terrace every day, and it became too painful for me.”

15. [15]
    Ms Dawson made the decision with Mr Hammett’s support that she should get away and stay with her daughter and her family in Townsville for a while, “to try and heal”.
16. [16]
    She left the bulk of her belongings at Doughan Terrace, only taking clothes and necessities with her when she moved to Townsville in March 2016 to cope with her grief.  She lived with her daughter in Townsville for the next few years and did not move back to Mount Isa until August 2018.  In the interim, she and Mr Hammett continued their relationship, with her travelling back to Mount Isa regularly to see him, and him sometimes travelling to Townsville to see her.  They also had frequent and regular contact by telephone.
17. [17]
    When she moved back to Mount Isa in August 2018, Ms Dawson was still not ready to live at Doughan Terrace, remaining worried, as she put it, “That all the grief of Mark’s death would come flooding back”.
18. [18]
    In consultation with Mr Hammett, they decided, “It would not be good for her” to move back, “… just yet”.  In the ensuing years, however, she spent a significant amount of time at Doughan Terrace, sometimes dining there, sometimes staying overnight there and sometimes cleaning there, whilst Mr Hammett worked his long-shift hours. 
19. [19]
    It is noteworthy that, even after 2016, when Ms Dawson was not continuing to reside at Mr Hammett’s home on a full-time basis, she, nonetheless, inhabited that home in other ways.  As earlier mentioned, she left most of her belongings at his home, and most of her belongings remained there until the time of his death.  This included her business equipment connected with her art and craft business, as well as her Mitsubishi utility, which Mr Hammett preferred to drive, in order to avoid getting his Mitsubishi Pajero dirty and to minimise his fuel costs. 
20. [20]
    Ms Rankine deposes that when she visited her father in late 2021, she saw no sign of Ms Dawson’s belongings, such as female toiletries in the bathroom.  However, Ms Dawson has credibly explained that she kept her toiletry items and clothing in her side of the wardrobe in the bedroom she shared with Mr Hammett, because he was in the process of renovating the bathroom and replacing the old vanity cupboards.  I accept her evidence that the preponderance of her property did remain at Mr Hammett’s house beyond 2016 until his death.
21. [21]
    Mr Hammett did renovations from time-to-time of his house, some of which were incomplete by the time of his death.  The renovations included opening up the downstairs area of the house and, more particularly, removing the bedroom which had been Mark’s childhood bedroom.  Of this, Ms Dawson deposed, “Richie got rid of Mark’s room to help me and Richie with our grief.”
22. [22]
    As will be apparent from some of the other circumstances discussed hereafter, Mr Hammett and Ms Dawson continued their relationship, despite her not having been able to conquer her grief sufficiently to move back into his residence full time. 
23. [23]
    It may be accepted that Ms Dawson’s grief reaction was very, perhaps even unusually, significant.  However, it may likewise be accepted that people grieve differently and react differently to grief and the triggers of grief. 
24. [24]
    In a similar vein, it might be thought novel, though, not inherently implausible, that Ms Dawson sufficiently conquered her grief to be able to visit and stay overnight at the house, yet had not conquered it sufficiently to resume living there full time in the intervening period of approximately six years prior to Mr Hammett’s death.  That prolonged period of not resuming full-time cohabitation is obviously a weighty consideration and supported Ms Rankine’s argument.  However, I did not have the impression that there was any other reason than Ms Dawson’s grief that would explain the unusual feature of this case that, save for the absence of continuing cohabitation, she and Mr Hammett, in all other respects, maintained their life as a couple. 

The reputation and public aspects of their relationship

25. [25]
    Ms Dawson and Mr Hammett continued to go on outings together beyond 2015 through to his death.  They were present together at celebrations of Easter, Christmas, birthdays, weddings, funerals.  Similarly, they attended together family gatherings, dinners, camping trips and holidays. 
26. [26]
    A noteworthy feature of this proceeding is that there were a number of deponents who deposed to being unaware of the existence of the ongoing relationship or to seeing Ms Dawson and Mr Hammett together.  On the other hand, a number of deponents deposed to an awareness of the relationship and to seeing them together.
27. [27]
    In determining this case, I have been careful not to attach weight to mere conclusory opinions as to whether or not Ms Dawson and Mr Hammett were in a relationship together, and rather have looked to such information as the deponents have provided that may have caused them to formulate a view one way or the other.  It is convenient to refer to some witnesses’ affidavits to demonstrate the point.
28. [28]
    Kathleen Titlow in her first affidavit deposed:

“To my knowledge, Richie and Shirley were in a relationship for 21 years and to the day Richie died.”

29. [29]
    She did not provide much evidentiary fuel to indicate the foundation for her having that view.  In her second affidavit, she said:

“I know that Richie and Shirley were in a relationship from 2000 to the day Richie died, because Richie spoke to me about Shirley all the time, and he never told me they had broken up.  That is something I believe he would have told me if it had happened.”

30. [30]
    Notwithstanding that comment by her, it seemed from cross-examination of her before me that she did not realise cohabitation had not been resumed after Ms Dawson’s return to Mount Isa.  This illustrates the danger in relying upon an opinion expressed without recourse to the underlying foundational evidence said to justify it. 
31. [31]
    Turning to other illustrations, this time from witnesses relied upon by Ms Rankine, Natasha Raymon deposed:

“I know he was not in a relationship … with Shirley Dawson … particularly after Shirley’s son passed away.”

32. [32]
    But the foundational content for this expression of opinion was merely that Ms Dawson was not with Mr Hammett, or mentioned, when she saw Mr Hammett visiting his granddaughter’s house in Hinkler Crescent and that there were a lot of times that she would pass Mr Hammett in his car and Ms Dawson was not in the vehicle. 
33. [33]
    Virginia Mayo deposed that the relationship had ended after the suicide of Mark.  As to the foundation upon which she based this expression of opinion, she said that she often ran into Mr Hammett at Bunnings and noticed he was always by himself.  Respectfully, it is hardly surprising that some men attend Bunnings unaccompanied by their female partners.
34. [34]
    Tyleisha Rankine deposed that Mr Hammett and Ms Dawson separated before she moved from Mount Isa to Cairns, which was in late 2018.  Such foundation, as was proffered, was that Mr Hammett didn’t not speak to her of Ms Dawson after the witness “left” or when the witness returned to Mount Isa to visit from Cairns.  How often those visits occurred and for how long she was in company with Mr Hammett during them was not deposed to. 
35. [35]
    The final example is Douglas Williams.  He deposed he could not recall if Mr Hammett and Ms Dawson were ever together and deposed that Mr Hammett hardly ever spoke of Ms Dawson.  He really only recalled Mr Hammett having told him in around 2018 that Ms Dawson had left for Townsville.  On the other hand, on his own account, Mr Hammett was a fairly reserved person and he did not really speak much about his personal things. 
36. [36]
    In contrast to Ms Rankine’s reliance upon such evidence, it remains that there were telephone, text and Facebook communications, reference to which will be made later in these reasons, that confirmed the undoubted ongoing connection between Mr Hammett and Ms Dawson. 
37. [37]
    Further, Ms Dawson adduced evidence from a number of witnesses who bore incidental witness to the continued association of Ms Dawson and Mr Hammett.  For example, Rhonda Tim, who was not required for cross-examination, deposed:

“[15] After Shirley came back from Townsville, I remember being in town, and I saw Richie and Shirley at an ATM.  I beeped the horn, and they saw me and laughed.  I saw Shirley hand Richie the bank card.

[16] I often saw Richie and Shirley driving in Richie’s car together.  When I was in town, I would see Richie and Shirley together.

[17] I remember seeing them around town a lot.  I would see them walk out of a shop together.  I saw them sitting outside of a hospital together.  I always gave them a wave when I saw them.  Sometimes I would pull up in my car and yell “ay” and drive off, and I could see them laughing.

[18] After Shirley came back from Townsville, I saw her at Richie’s house almost every day.  I saw Richie at Shannon’s place as well.  Shannon lives just around the corner from Doughan Terrace.  I remember saying to Richie and Shirley, “Are you two still together?”  And they just laughed.”

38. [38]
    By way of further example, Marlene Fewquandi, who lived in Mr Hammett’s street and was also not required for cross-examination, deposed:

“[12] When Shirley came back to Mount Isa in 2018, I saw her at Richie’s house multiple times every week.

[13] From my house, if I’m outside, I could see into their front yard.  I would see Richie and Shirley in the front yard.  I could see Shirley’s car parked at Richie’s all the time.

[14] I saw Richie and Shirley driving up and down Doughan Terrace in the car together.  When they drove together, they were usually in Richie’s car.  When they saw me, they gave a wave.

[15] I saw Richie driving Shirley’s ute all the time.

[16] I saw Shirley’s son Matthew in the yard with the hose.  He’s lived there for many years.”

39. [39]
    Some information advanced by deponents contained hearsay as to representations of fact made by Mr Hammett.  In weighing the evidence of those representations, I had regard to them, not in the context of them being evidence of the truth of the representations, but rather as evidence of the fact that representations were made.  Having regard to the evidence in this way means the evidence is circumstantially relevant, in that the fact that Mr Hammett made representations as to the existence or otherwise of a relationship would be, of itself, a public aspect of the relationship.
40. [40]
    Another form of representation of fact which attracted particular attention in the case was Mr Hammett’s patient records from his admission in Mount Isa to his time in Townsville Hospital before he died.  This included some records describing Ms Dawson as Mr Hammett’s ex-partner, exhibit 1, p 126.  Conversely, other records appear to refer to her as his wife, exhibit 1, p 161, and as his partner, exhibit 1, p 169.
41. [41]
    As indicated during the hearing, I regard such records collectively as of neutral probative value.  There are four reasons for this.  Firstly, they merely purport to record information sourced from others.  Secondly, it is not always clear who those sources would have been.  Thirdly, it does not follow they were always reliable sources or conveying information in a reliable state.  Fourthly, it is not assured that they record what was said, as distinct, for example, from recording the medical staff members interpretation of what was said and or interpretation of its meaning. 
42. [42]
    Say, for example, a medical staff member received information from a source that Ms Dawson and Mr Hammett used to reside together but were no longer residing together.  Such a person might wrongly assume from such information that they were ex-partners and make a record to that effect.  The prospect of such erroneous understanding is more than merely hypothetical.  For example, two of Ms Dawson’s children deposed to giving different information to two medical staff members than the information recorded by those staff.  Such divergence might have been relevant in a limited way as fuel for cross-examination on a collateral-credit issue had they been required for cross-examination but they were not. 
43. [43]
    In moving on from this unhelpful area of evidence, I note Ms Rankine placed emphasis upon records describing her as Mr Hammett’s next of kin, exhibit 1, pp 127, 165, and his emergency contact, exhibit 1, p 163.  It does not follow that, because a medical staff member, acting on information received, recorded Ms Rankine as next of kin or emergency contact, that all other potentially interested persons agreed it was accurate.  Nor does it follow, even if it was accurate, that it excluded others as standing in a more intimate or close connection to Mr Hammett.  The point is of neutral probative significance to the issue at hand.  The same reasoning also applies to Ms Dawson’s reliance on evidence that she was her husband’s employer’s emergency contact nominee.

The length of their relationship

44. [44]
    It is not in dispute that Mr Hammett and Ms Dawson were in a relationship of one form or another from 2001, when they began a romantic relationship, through to the time of Mr Hammett’s death in March 2022.  As already mentioned, they cohabitated from 2003 to 2016.  Importantly, they continued their existing relationship thereafter, save for the aspect of the cohabitation, until the time of Mr Hammett’s death.
45. [45]
    Ms Rankine emphasised she does not dispute that they continued a relationship “as friends”, but she does not accept they continued their relationship as a couple on a genuine domestic basis.  Yet it is clear that, even after 2016, their continuing relationship was much more than a relationship of mere friends. 

Whether or not a sexual relationship exists or existed

46. [46]
    Ms Dawson and Mr Hammett’s relationship was a sexual one and they continued to share the same bed after 2016, both when they would spend time together in overnight visits in the era when Ms Dawson resided in Townsville, as well as in the era when she later moved back to Mount Isa.  Ms Rankine required Ms Dawson to be produced for cross-examination, but in that cross-examination did not challenge the effect of Ms Dawson’s evidence that an intimate relationship continued, even after 2016.
47. [47]
    Ms Rankine deposes that when she visited her father at a time after Ms Dawson had moved out in 2016, her father used the term, “We’ve split the sheets”.  However, she also deposes her father did not want to discuss the matter.  Ms Rankine had to have been aware over the years that a relationship continued, for she “liked” a number of Facebook posts showing photographs of Mr Hammett and Ms Dawson together. 
48. [48]
    Notably, her affidavit does not suggest she revisited the topic of her father and Ms Dawson’s relationship, save for deposing that on one occasion, she asked her father why he was allowing Ms Dawson’s son Matthew to stay at his home, “As he and Shirley were no longer together”.  Curiously, she did not depose to what her father said in response to that question. 
49. [49]
    In the face of Ms Dawson’s evidence that she and Mr Hammett continued to share the same bed when overnighting together and the various other pieces of circumstantial evidence demonstrating the continuation of more than a mere friendship, I did not attach particular weight to the isolated instance in 2016 where her father used the term, “split the sheets”, in talking to Ms Rankine as being of particular significance in the case, particularly in informing the public or reputational aspect of their relationship. 

The degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangement for financial support

50. [50]
    Ms Dawson’s undisputed evidence is that Mr Hammett, who preferred to deal in cash, was financially supportive of her and her children, and that his financial support, particularly of her, continued beyond 2016 through to his death.  Indeed, even after Ms Dawson returned to Mount Isa and recommenced paid employment, he helped Ms Dawson with financial contributions towards paying her car registration, her car services and maintenance, her annual nursing registration fees, her annual mining lease fee, her travelling in connection with her art exhibitions, her art and craft shared rental and outgoings.
51. [51]
    On occasions when she would borrow money from Mr Hammett and later try to pay him back, he would not accept the repayments.  He would purchase tickets to attend Townsville football games for Ms Dawson, her children and extended family.  He also requested Ms Dawson to assist him to purchase gifts for his family in December 2021.
52. [52]
    I accept, as was highlighted by Ms Rankine in submissions, that Mr Hammett was a generous man, and I am prepared to infer he would have been financially generous towards other people, such as his own children.  It remains, though, that the degree of financial support he provided to Ms Dawson far exceeds what would normally be expected of a relationship between mere friends, as Ms Rankine would characterise the relationship.

Their ownership use and acquisition of property

53. [53]
    As already mentioned Mr Hammett used to use Ms Dawson’s utility, which had remained at his house, even after she had stopped residing there full time from 2016.  His continued possession and use of her motor vehicle, even after that time, is another piece of circumstantial evidence supporting the view that they continued to live merged lives together, notwithstanding the cessation of her full-time residency on account of her grief reaction.

The degree of mutual commitment to a shared life, including the care and support of each other

54. [54]
    There is a substantial body of evidence supporting Ms Dawson’s evidence of the shared life she and Mr Hammett continued to live, even beyond 2016 through to his death.  This includes photographs of them together at various family camping trips and other outings, telephone records, confirming that they continued regular contact by telephone with each other, and samples of text messages exchanged between them.
55. [55]
    It is true, as Ms Rankine highlighted, that some of these text messages went to dealing with Ms Dawson’s son Matthew, who continued to live at Mr Hammett’s premises, even in his adulthood.  That said, the fact that he continued to live at the premises is, of itself, a significant consideration touched upon further below.  It is also true that the text messages did not contain expressions of love, whether by words or emojis of the kind that some loving couples may exchange by text.  However, Ms Dawson explained that she and Mr Hammett were not flowery, by which she meant not demonstrative, in the way in which they expressed their affection for each other.  Further, there is evidence from a variety of deponents to the effect that Mr Hammett was a man of few words about his private feelings.
56. [56]
    In any event, there remain many text messages of a kind one would expect to be exchanged between a couple living the merged lives described by Ms Dawson.  They include, not only exchanges of information about mundane domestic planning, but about other aspects of their personal lives, such as favoured songs, minor life victories, such as selling two paintings, the price of gold and the desirability of buying a gold detector, exchanges of videos, pride in the achievement of young relatives, invitations to go looking for bush medicine, their whereabouts when travelling and assurances of calling each other later.
57. [57]
    Further, Ms Dawson continued to support Mr Hammett during the sad decline in his health, as well as his time in hospital preceding his death.
58. [58]
    Before leaving the topic of their degree of mutual commitment to a shared life, I note much reliance was placed by Ms Rankine on her father, within the last few years of his life, having contemplated a move to the Atherton Tablelands, to which he had an Indigenous connection.  Ms Rankine’s own evidence is that this was her idea.  She deposes her father was coming around to her idea.
59. [59]
    It is not in issue that Mr Hammett did speak to others of the idea of eventually moving there, for instance, Mr Williams and another witness Ms Protheroe deposed to him mentioning it.  So too, for that matter, does Ms Dawson, who deposed:

“I recall Richie telling me a few times that he would like to buy some land in Tolga.  He did tell me that Rowena wanted him to move to Cairns to live.  I recall Richie saying that he wasn’t sure about Cairns, but he wouldn’t mind moving to Tolga.  I said to Richie, “Well, if you’re going, I’m coming too!”

60. [60]
    There is, however, no evidence that Mr Hammett ever spoke of this prospect in a more concrete way, for example, of arrangements that he put in place to sell up in Mount Isa or to buy in Far North Queensland.  The high point submitted for by Ms Rankine is that her father did not mention to her or persons like Mr Williams and Mrs Protheroe that he may move to Far North Queensland together with Ms Dawson.  Given the speculative stage of his expressions of interest in such a move and his apparent reservations in discussing matters personal to him, it is, on any view of this case, unremarkable that he did not descend into mentioning its bearing upon his future plans for such relationship as he had with Ms Dawson.

The care and support of children

61. [61]
    As earlier mentioned, Ms Dawson’s son Matthew, who suffers from depression and anxiety, remained living at Mr Hammett’s home beyond 2016.  Indeed, he remained living there through to the time of Mr Hammett’s death.  There is no suggestion that he paid rent to do so. 
62. [62]
    It may, of course, be accepted that Mr Hammett would have harboured his own affection for children of Ms Dawson, who had grown to adulthood during the era when she resided full time there.  However, allowing her son Matthew to continue living there, even when Ms Dawson’s grief prevented her from doing so, involves a degree of generosity and tolerance which is more explicable if it occurred, as I find it did, in the context of Mr Hammett and Ms Dawson maintaining the merged lives of a de facto married couple. 
63. [63]
    Consistently with this, the affidavits of Ms Dawson’s daughters Miriam and Shannon describe Mr Hammett’s ongoing presence in their lives.  By way of further illustration, Miriam deposes to the fact that she still has her teenage bedroom at Mr Hammett’s house, where there are boxes of her possessions still there, and Shannon deposes to Mr Hammett’s close connection with her daughter Yovarni.

The performance of household tasks

64. [64]
    Mr Hammett and Ms Dawson shared household expenses and chores when they resided together.  Even after Ms Dawson returned to Mount Isa in 2018, she continued to contribute to the running of Mr Hammett’s household, acquiring groceries for the household, undertaking the cooking of meals to be eaten at the household and cleaning weekly when Mr Hammett was working long-shift hours.  The text messages in evidence corroborate the significant contribution which Ms Dawson made to the performance of household tasks at Mr Hammett’s home.

Conclusion

65. [65]
    In conclusion, the circumstances of the case in combination provide powerful evidence of Ms Dawson and Mr Hammett continuing to live their lives together in the years preceding Mr Hammett’s death as a couple on a genuine domestic basis.
66. [66]
    Of course, the prolonged period from 2016 during which Ms Dawson did not reside full time at Mr Hammett’s house is a powerful countervailing consideration.  However, I accept Ms Dawson’s explanation that was because of her grief reaction, extraordinary and prolonged as it was.  I am fortified in that view by the absence of any other credible explanation for the period of non-residence and the force of the other circumstances evidencing the continued living of their lives together on a genuine domestic basis.
67. [67]
    In my conclusion, Ms Dawson has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that she was Mr Hammett’s de facto partner, and they lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis within the meaning of s 32DA, Acts Interpretation Act, for a continuous period exceeding two years, ending on Mr Hammett’s death.
68. [68]
    A number of inevitably cascading consequences flow from that conclusion.  I should make a declaration consistent with it.  I should set aside Ms Rankine’s caveat against an administration order.  I should order a grant of Letters of Administration to Ms Dawson and I should order delivery up by Ms Rankine of Mr Hammett’s Mitsubishi wagon.
69. [69]
    My orders are:

1. Pursuant to s 6 Succession Act 1981 (Qld) and s 32DA Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) Shirley Ann Dawson is declared to be the surviving de facto spouse of Richard Charles Hammett (deceased).

2. Pursuant to s 6 Succession Act and r 626 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, the caveat filed by Rowena Lorelle Rankine against an order to administer the estate and requiring the matter to be referred to the Court as constituted by a Judge, Court file number 266/22, is set aside.

3. Pursuant to s 6 Succession Act and r 610(1)(a) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, a grant of Letters of Administration be issued to Shirley Ann Dawson as administrator, subject to the formal requirements of the Registrar, but dispensing with any advertising requirement, pursuant to r 598(4) UCPR.

4. Pursuant to s 6 Succession Act, within seven days of the date of this order, Rowena Lorelle Rankine deliver to Shirley Ann Dawson or as her solicitors may direct, the Mitsubishi wagon registration 365LVV registered to the deceased or at least previously registered to the deceased.

I will hear the parties as to costs.

70. [70]
    Having heard submissions as to costs, albeit, that Ms Rankine chose to leave the Courtroom and not return, it is appropriate that my costs order reflect a development that occurred on the 17^th of February 2023, when a very generous, without prejudice save as to costs, offer was made to Ms Rankine’s then solicitors by Ms Dawson’s solicitors.  In light of its generosity compared to the outcome that, in a financial sense, Ms Rankine now has as compared to the outcome Ms Dawson now has, it is appropriate that Ms Rankine not be the beneficiary of her costs paid by the estate incurred after the making of that offer, which, of course, was not accepted. 
71. [71]
    Prior to that time, however, I am of the view, notwithstanding her lack of success in the case, that bearing in mind this case was triggered by Mr Hammett’s own failure to provide a will and, thus, provide in an orderly fashion for the disposition of his estate upon his death, that this is an appropriate case in which the estate ought bear the parties’ costs.  So up until the point of that offer, that will be the outcome and it will involve costs on the indemnity basis, as ordinarily occurs in cases of this kind and as is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. 
72. [72]
    It will be necessary to adjust the orders to allow for the fact that I have previously made an order that Ms Rankine pay the costs thrown away by an adjournment of the hearing, which she secured on the 14^th of July 2023.
73. [73]
    My further orders then are:

5. The costs of the applicant be paid by the estate on the indemnity basis.

6. The costs of the respondents up to and including 17 February 2023 be paid by the estate on the indemnity basis.

7. The costs to be paid pursuant to order (6) are to be reduced by the amount of the applicant’s costs assessed on the standard basis thrown away by the adjournment granted on 14 July 2023.