De Facto Property Dispute with Extreme Wealth Disparity: How Does the Court Determine a ‘Just and Equitable’ Settlement When Contributions Are Vastly Unequal?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Corelli & Beroni (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 327, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

• Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1)
• Presiding Judge: Justice Mead
• Cause of Action: De Facto Property Settlement
• Judgment Date: 17 May 2024

Core Keywords

• Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
• Keyword 2: Family Law
• Keyword 3: De Facto Property Settlement
• Keyword 4: Section 90SM Family Law Act
• Keyword 5: Non-Financial Contributions
• Keyword 6: Just and Equitable

Background

This case concerns a property settlement application following the breakdown of a de facto relationship of approximately six years and ten months. The matter presents a classic yet complex scenario in family law: one party, the Respondent, entered the relationship as an extremely wealthy individual, having amassed a fortune over a lifetime of business activity. The other party, the Applicant, arrived in Australia as a recent immigrant with minimal assets. Throughout their time together, the parties maintained largely separate finances, with the Respondent providing the Applicant with a generous allowance and covering all living expenses. Following the relationship’s end, the Court was tasked with determining how to divide property in a manner that was “just and equitable,” despite the overwhelming initial disparity in their financial positions.

Core Disputes and Claims

The central conflict revolved around whether the Court should alter the existing property interests at all, and if so, to what extent.

• The Applicant’s Claim: The Applicant sought a significant alteration of the property pool in her favour. Initially, this was framed as a 30% share of the assets, later amended to a lump sum payment of AUD $10,000,000, in recognition of her non-financial contributions as a homemaker and companion, and to provide for her future needs.

• The Respondent’s Claim: The Respondent argued that no order altering property interests should be made. His position was that the parties had intentionally kept their finances separate, his wealth was generated long before the relationship, and he had already been exceedingly generous to the Applicant. In the alternative, he submitted that any adjustment should be “vanishingly small” and offset by the financial support he had already provided.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship between the parties began in late 2009 under somewhat unusual circumstances. The Applicant, Ms Corelli, was a 42-year-old woman from Country G who had recently arrived in Adelaide with her 15-year-old son. She was on a temporary visa, had limited English, and possessed very modest financial resources, having separated from her former husband after what she alleged was a history of domestic violence. Her primary goal was to establish a new life in Australia and secure a future for her son.

The Respondent, Mr Beroni, was a 78-year-old self-made millionaire who had migrated from Country K in 1952. Having gone through an acrimonious divorce in the late 1990s, he was acutely aware of the financial risks of relationships. He was, by his own admission, lonely and looking for both a companion and someone to help maintain his large, newly renovated home.

They were introduced by a mutual acquaintance, a migration agent known as Mr B. The Respondent had confided in Mr B about his loneliness, while the Applicant had expressed her need for work. What began as a potential arrangement for housekeeping quickly blossomed into a romantic relationship. Within months, Ms Corelli had moved into Mr Beroni’s luxurious property, and he began providing for her and her son completely. He paid her a monthly allowance, initially AUD $2,000 and later increased to AUD $3,000, and covered all household and living expenses.

Despite his generosity, Mr Beroni was determined to protect his vast wealth. In 2011, he insisted that Ms Corelli sign a Binding Financial Agreement (BFA), which she did, feeling she had little choice if she wished for the relationship—and her prospects of remaining in Australia—to continue. Over the next several years, the parties lived a life of comfort funded entirely by the Respondent. He paid for overseas holidays, gifted her expensive jewellery, and purchased a share portfolio and an apartment in her name for her sons in Country G.

However, the relationship was not without friction. Ms Corelli felt controlled and financially insecure, aware that her lifestyle was entirely at the Respondent’s discretion. The Respondent, in turn, remained deeply anxious about protecting his assets. The relationship eventually deteriorated, leading to a final separation in December 2016. Ms Corelli initiated legal proceedings, and a key preliminary battle was fought over the validity of the 2011 BFA, which was ultimately set aside by the Court, paving the way for the current property settlement dispute.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• Affidavit Evidence: Ms Corelli provided extensive evidence detailing her contributions as a homemaker and companion over the nearly seven-year relationship. This included all cooking, cleaning, laundry, and management of the household. She also detailed significant physical labour she undertook during the extensive renovations of the Respondent’s home, acting as his “willing, hardworking and effective assistant.”
• Evidence of Detriment: She argued that the relationship had impacted her ability to develop her career and English language skills, leaving her in a position of financial vulnerability at the age of 55 with limited superannuation.
• Medical Records: Clinical notes from her doctor were tendered, documenting her reports of stress, anxiety, and insomnia stemming from the respondent’s controlling behaviour and her financial insecurity.
• Evidence of Unconscionable Conduct: The Applicant made allegations of controlling behaviour, verbal abuse, and two instances of physical assault, which she argued made her contributions more arduous, invoking the principle from Kennon & Kennon.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• Affidavit Evidence: Mr Beroni’s evidence sought to minimise the Applicant’s contributions, portraying them as no more than what would be expected of someone living expense-free in his home. He asserted that he also contributed to household tasks and that the Applicant spent a great deal of time on her personal interests.
• Financial Separation: He emphasised that he had intentionally kept all his business and personal assets separate and that the Applicant made no financial contribution to their acquisition, conservation, or improvement.
• Evidence of Generosity: He detailed the significant financial support he provided throughout the relationship, including the monthly allowance, gifts of jewellery, shares, a car, and an overseas apartment, arguing that she had already been more than adequately compensated.
• Witness Evidence: He relied on evidence from his son and tradesmen involved in the renovations to support his position that the Applicant’s contribution to the property improvements was minimal.

Core Dispute Points

1. Valuation of Non-Financial Contributions: The central dispute was how to quantify the Applicant’s non-financial contributions as a homemaker and companion against the Respondent’s overwhelming financial contributions and pre-existing wealth.
2. The “Just and Equitable” Threshold: The Respondent argued that given the short duration of the relationship and the separation of finances, it was not “just and equitable” to alter the existing property interests at all. The Applicant argued that the termination of the relationship and her resulting financial vulnerability made an alteration essential.
3. Future Needs: The parties disputed the extent to which an adjustment should be made for the Applicant’s future needs, considering her age, employment capacity, and limited superannuation versus the Respondent’s immense wealth.
4. Credibility: The credibility of both parties was a central issue, particularly concerning the nature of the relationship, the extent of the Applicant’s contributions, and allegations of controlling or abusive behaviour.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

The affidavits of both parties presented starkly contrasting narratives.

The Applicant’s affidavit was a detailed chronicle of her life with the Respondent. It meticulously listed her daily domestic duties, her role in supervising renovations, her physical labour in the garden, and her efforts to provide companionship and care for an elderly partner. This narrative was designed to build a case that her contributions were substantial and indispensable to the welfare of the family unit, thereby creating a moral and legal claim on the asset pool, despite her lack of direct financial input. Her statements also painted a picture of a relationship marked by a significant power imbalance, where her financial and residential security were entirely dependent on the Respondent’s goodwill.

The Respondent’s affidavit, conversely, framed the relationship in more transactional terms. It emphasised his initial wealth, his clearly stated intention to keep his assets separate (evidenced by the BFA), and his consistent financial generosity. His statements downplayed the Applicant’s domestic work as ordinary chores and depicted her contributions to the renovations as negligible. The strategic intent was to portray the relationship as one where he was a benefactor and she a beneficiary, arguing that it would be unjust to allow her to claim a share of an asset pool she did nothing to create. This legal strategy relied on convincing the Court that the assumptions underpinning their cohabitation did not include a future sharing of wealth.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final hearing, the case had already passed through significant procedural stages. The most critical order was that of Justice Tree on 2 December 2019, which set aside the 2011 Binding Financial Agreement. This order was pivotal, as it removed the primary legal barrier to the Applicant’s property settlement claim and was subsequently upheld on appeal by the Full Court.

Additionally, on 13 October 2021, Justice Mead made an interim order for the Respondent to pay the Applicant spousal maintenance of AUD $1,000 per week, backdated to 31 January 2020. This order acknowledged the Applicant’s immediate financial need and the Respondent’s clear capacity to pay, setting a preliminary tone for the final hearing.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The trial became a forensic examination of the nearly seven-year relationship, with the credibility of each party placed under intense scrutiny during cross-examination.

The Respondent’s case began to unravel when confronted with contradictions between his testimony and his past actions. He attempted to portray the relationship as less significant and his feelings as less genuine than they were. This was decisively undermined by the presentation of a birthday card he had written to the Applicant in 2016, shortly before their separation, in which he had written, “I wish you the best happiness for your special day, with love forever.” When cross-examined, he denied ever telling her that he loved her. This inconsistency, among others, severely damaged his credibility.

Similarly, his attempts to minimise the Applicant’s homemaking contributions appeared self-serving and were unconvincing. He conceded under questioning that she had cooked, cleaned, and done laundry for seven years, but his reluctance to acknowledge the value of this work painted him as ungenerous.

The Applicant, while found to be “coy” about her initial financial circumstances and motivations for entering the relationship, was ultimately viewed as the more reliable witness regarding her contributions. The Court found her detailed evidence about her domestic duties and physical labour during renovations to be largely truthful.

A key moment in the hearing related to the assessment of the Respondent’s wealth. He was vague and unconvincing regarding his overseas assets, particularly in light of much higher valuations he had previously declared to the Australian Taxation Office. This failure to provide clear and frank disclosure weakened his position further. The Court addressed this by adopting the highest value he had previously declared for his overseas properties, stating:

I am satisfied that the preferable approach in this matter is to adopt a global approach, determine the pool on a global basis and thereafter make findings as to contribution and needs factors to reach a conclusion as to the appropriate division of the parties’ assets. In those circumstances I find the asset pool to be as follows…

This statement was critical because it signalled the Court’s rejection of the Respondent’s “asset-by-asset” approach, which would have quarantined his business empire from the claim. By adopting a global approach, the Judge confirmed that all assets were on the table for consideration, and the Applicant’s non-financial contributions would be assessed against the entirety of that pool.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

On 17 May 2024, Justice Mead delivered the final orders. The Court ordered:

1. In full and final settlement of any property claims, the Respondent is to pay the Applicant the sum of AUD $4,000,000 on or before 28 June 2024.
2. Upon payment, each party will retain all other assets in their name or possession, free from any claim by the other.
3. The order for spousal maintenance made on 13 October 2021 shall be discharged upon the Respondent’s compliance with the payment order.
4. The Applicant is granted liberty to register a Caveat over the Respondent’s Suburb L property to secure the judgment sum.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

The jurisprudential value of Corelli & Beroni (No 3) lies in its modern application of the principles from Stanford & Stanford to a de facto relationship characterised by an extreme initial wealth disparity. It serves as a powerful authority for the proposition that the “just and equitable” requirement under Section 90SM(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 is not a barrier to a substantial property alteration, even where one party brings nearly all the assets into the relationship. The judgment demonstrates that a Court can, and will, look beyond a strict accounting of financial inputs to recognise the holistic value of non-financial contributions to the welfare of the family over a significant period. It moves the assessment away from a cold, transactional ledger towards a qualitative evaluation of the roles played by each party.

Judgment Points

A notable aspect of the judgment was Justice Mead’s two-stage approach to quantifying the award. Instead of applying a single percentage, His Honour first assessed the Applicant’s overall contributions (both financial and non-financial) and determined they warranted an adjustment of AUD $500,000. He then conducted a separate assessment under Section 90SF(3) for future needs, which resulted in a substantial additional adjustment of AUD $3,500,000. This methodological clarity provides a useful template for practitioners in cases where a simple percentage split would be inappropriate or lead to an unjust outcome.

Legal Basis

The Court’s decision was fundamentally grounded in Section 90SM(3) of the Family Law Act 1975, which requires that any property settlement order must be “just and equitable.” The Judge first had to cross this threshold before considering the specific contributions under Section 90SM(4) and future needs under Section 90SF(3). The judgment affirms that the breakdown of the relationship itself, where parties no longer share common use of property and the assumptions underpinning their financial arrangements have ended, is often sufficient to make it just and equitable to make an order.

Evidence Chain

The Applicant’s victory was built on a consistent and detailed chain of evidence that established her indispensable role in the relationship. Her extensive affidavit evidence on her homemaking contributions, corroborated by her ability to withstand cross-examination, created a compelling picture. Critically, the Respondent’s own actions—such as providing for her completely, including her in his will for a substantial amount (AUD $3 million), and funding the purchase of an overseas apartment for her sons—undermined his litigation stance that their lives were entirely separate. These actions were interpreted by the Court as evidence of a committed de facto relationship where he recognised a moral, if not a previously legal, obligation to provide for her.

Judicial Original Quotation

The core of the Court’s reasoning for the substantial future needs adjustment can be found in this critical paragraph:

I find that it would be unreasonable, in making orders for settlement of property, that the result would leave the applicant in financial circumstances that resulted in her being unable to maintain a standard of living that in all the circumstances of this case is reasonable. I find that this is an important consideration in determining this matter. I find that it is reasonable in the circumstances of this case that the applicant should be left in the position where she is able to purchase a modest home for herself freehold of any mortgage commitments and be able to meet reasonable expenses.

This statement encapsulates the protective jurisdiction of the Family Court. Justice Mead recognised that after a nearly seven-year relationship where the Applicant was financially dependent on the Respondent, it would be unjust for her to be left in a precarious position while the Respondent retained his immense wealth intact. The order was crafted not just to reward past contributions, but to ensure her future financial security.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Respondent’s case failed primarily due to a loss of credibility and a litigation strategy that appeared ungenerous and out of touch with the reality of the relationship. His attempts to minimise the Applicant’s contributions were seen as self-serving and were contradicted by both his own actions and the objective evidence. His evasiveness regarding his overseas assets and his aggressive denial of any emotional connection, even when faced with his own handwritten words of affection, painted him as an unreliable witness. By arguing for a “vanishingly small” adjustment, he adopted an extreme position that left no room for a reasonable compromise, ultimately leading the Court to favour the Applicant’s more compelling narrative of contribution and need.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

• Stanford & Stanford [2012] HCA 52: The foundational High Court authority establishing that the court must first find it is “just and equitable” to make an order altering property interests before applying the contribution and future needs tests.
• AJO & GRO (2005) FLC 93-218: Confirms that property should generally be valued as at the date of trial.
• Fielding & Nichol [2014] FCWA 77: Cited as an example where parties keeping their finances separate may weigh against making an order, a principle the Court distinguished in this case due to the applicant’s significant non-financial contributions and dependence.

Implications

1. Wealth Does Not Make You Immune: Entering a relationship with significant wealth does not automatically shield those assets from a claim. A de facto partner’s contributions to the welfare of the family create a valid entitlement, irrespective of the initial financial disparity.
2. Non-Financial Contributions Have Real Value: The Court will give significant weight to consistent and substantial contributions as a homemaker, parent, and companion. Keeping a detailed record or diary of these contributions can be crucial evidence.
3. Actions Speak Louder Than Words: How you treat your partner during the relationship—providing financial support, making gifts, including them in your will—can be used as powerful evidence of a mutual commitment, undermining any later claim that finances were entirely separate.
4. Credibility is Your Most Valuable Asset in Court: Inconsistencies, evasiveness, or appearing ungenerous can destroy your case. Authenticity and frankness are paramount when giving evidence.
5. Future Security is a Key Factor: The Court’s role is not just to divide assets based on the past, but also to ensure both parties can move forward with a reasonable standard of living. A significant disparity in future financial security can lead to a substantial adjustment.

Q&A Session

1. Why was the Applicant awarded AUD $4 million when her direct contributions were valued at only AUD $500,000?
   The additional AUD $3.5 million was an adjustment to account for her future needs, as assessed under Section 90SF(3) of the Family Law Act. The Court considered her age (55), her limited earning capacity, her minimal superannuation, and the high standard of living she had become accustomed to. It determined that this adjustment was necessary to ensure she could purchase a home and support herself reasonably in the future, thereby achieving a “just and equitable” outcome.

2. Why was the 2011 Binding Financial Agreement (BFA) set aside?
   The judgment refers to an earlier decision by Justice Tree. In Corelli & Beroni [2019] FamCA 911, the BFA was set aside on the grounds of unconscionable conduct. The Court found that the Applicant was in a position of “special disadvantage” when she signed it, due to factors including her poor English, her dependency on the Respondent for financial support and her visa status, and the fact she knew the relationship would end if she refused to sign.

3. Could the Respondent have better protected his assets?
   Yes. While no BFA is completely immune to challenge, a more equitable agreement drafted at the outset of the relationship might have been upheld. An agreement that made fair and reasonable provision for the Applicant in the event of a separation—rather than leaving her with virtually nothing as the 2011 BFA did—would have been much harder to set aside. His failure to negotiate a new, fairer agreement in 2013, when the opportunity arose, was a critical strategic error.

[Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines]

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

• Case Subtype: De Facto Property Settlement
• Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)

Core Test (Existence of De Facto Relationship – Section 4AA)

While not in dispute at the final hearing, the establishment of a de facto relationship requires examining the following factors as a whole:
* Duration of the relationship: The relationship lasted nearly seven years, well in excess of the standard two-year threshold.
* Nature and extent of common residence: The parties lived together continuously in the Respondent’s home from early 2010 to late 2016.
* Whether a sexual relationship exists: This was established from the outset of the relationship.
* Degree of financial dependence or interdependence: There was a high degree of financial dependence, with the Applicant relying entirely on the Respondent for all financial support.
* Ownership, use and acquisition of property: While property was owned separately, the Applicant used the Respondent’s property, and he purchased assets for her.
* Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: The long duration, shared home, joint holidays, and the Respondent including the Applicant in his will all pointed to a strong mutual commitment.
* The care and support of children: The Respondent supported the Applicant’s son for a period.
* Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: They presented publicly as a couple, attending events and holidays together.

Property Settlement – The Four-Step Process

This case is a textbook example of the Court applying the established four-step process for property settlement:
1. Identification and Valuation: The Court meticulously identified and valued all assets of both parties, including personal property, business interests, and superannuation, to determine the net asset pool of approximately AUD $160.9 million.
2. Assessment of Contributions:
* Financial Contributions: The Court found the Respondent’s financial contributions were “overwhelming.” The Applicant’s initial contribution was found to be negligible.
* Non-financial Contributions: The Court gave significant weight to the Applicant’s contributions as a homemaker, carer, and companion, as well as her physical labour during renovations. This was assessed as warranting a lump sum adjustment of AUD $500,000.
* Contributions to Welfare: The Applicant’s role in providing companionship and care for the much older Respondent was a key factor.
3. Adjustment for Future Needs (s 90SF(3) Factors): This was the most critical step. The Court considered the vast disparity in the parties’ future circumstances. The Applicant’s age (55), limited earning capacity, negligible superannuation, and need for secure housing were contrasted with the Respondent’s immense wealth and ongoing income streams. This led to a substantial adjustment of AUD $3.5 million.
4. Just and Equitable: The Court concluded that the final order, resulting in the Applicant receiving a total of AUD $4 million (approximately 2.5% of the total pool), was just and equitable in all the circumstances.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Even if her statutory claim had been weaker, the Applicant could have potentially explored equitable remedies:

• Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel: The Applicant could have argued that the Respondent, through his actions and promises (such as including her in his will), created an expectation that she would be financially secure. She acted in detrimental reliance on this by dedicating years of her life to the relationship and forgoing other opportunities. It would be unconscionable for him to resile from this promise.
• Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust: While harder to establish, an argument could be made that the Respondent was unjustly enriched by the Applicant’s unpaid domestic labour and care, which allowed him to focus on his wealth-generating activities. This could potentially give rise to a constructive trust over a portion of the assets, although the direct statutory claim under the Family Law Act is the more conventional and powerful pathway.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

• Regular Thresholds: For a de facto property claim, a relationship of at least 2 years is generally required under Section 90SB of the Family Law Act. This case, at nearly 7 years, easily satisfied this threshold.
• Exceptional Channels (Crucial): Even if the relationship had been less than two years, an exception could have applied. Section 90SB allows a claim if:
  • There is a child of the de facto relationship.
  • The applicant made substantial contributions and a failure to make an order would result in serious injustice. Given the Applicant’s significant non-financial contributions from the outset, a strong argument for “serious injustice” could have been made even in a shorter relationship.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

• Citation Angle: This judgment is a key authority for cases involving:
  • A significant disparity in the financial position of parties at the commencement of a de facto relationship.
  • The valuation of substantial non-financial contributions against overwhelming financial contributions.
  • The application of a significant “future needs” adjustment where one party is left vulnerable post-separation.
  • When it is appropriate to use a lump-sum assessment for contributions rather than a percentage-based approach.
• Citation Method:
  • As Positive Support: When representing a party with limited financial contributions but significant non-financial contributions, cite Corelli & Beroni (No 3) to argue that justice and equity require the Court to look beyond a strict accounting and make a substantial order based on contributions to family welfare and future needs.
  • As a Distinguishing Reference: When representing the wealthier party, you would need to distinguish the facts by demonstrating that the other party’s contributions were not as significant, the relationship was shorter, or that they were not left in a position of future financial need.

Conclusion

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Corelli & Beroni (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 327), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.