Defacto Relationships The Threshold Issues

Defacto Relationships

The Threshold Issues

Author: Belle Lane

Date: 22 August, 2013

This work is copyright. Apart from any permitted use under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced or copied in any form without the permission of the Author. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the author c/- [email protected].

Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues

1

Thereisnoendtothecomplexityofhumanrelationships,andnowhereisthis

seenmorethanwhentryingtoestablishwhetherornotpeopleareinadefacto

relationshipforthepurposesofFamilyLaw.

Partnerrelationshipsareoftenaslipperyslopeofcommitmentwithbothparties

slippingandstumblingatdifferenttimes.Itisthereforehardtodeterminewhen

arelationshipchangesintosomethingwiththecharacteristicsrequiredforade

factorelationship.

ThecommencementoftheoperationofPartVIIIABoftheFamilyLawActon1

March2009wassomewhatakintoa“MooniesWedding”.Manycoupleswentto

bedon28February2009asusualandwokeupon1March2009withtherights

andresponsibilitiesofmarriedcouples;manybeingcompletelyunawareoftheir

changeinstatus.Thisraised,andcontinuestoraise,questionsaboutwhois

actually“in”andwhois“out”ofthedefactoregime.

Thepurposeofthispaperistoreviewthecasesaboutthresholdissuesin2012

and2013andseewhatprinciplescanbedistilledfromthemtohelpusidentify

whenadefactorelationshipcommences.

ItalsoaimstodemystifythepositioninWesternAustralia,asthisStatehasnot

referredpowerstotheCommonwealthandhasseparatelegislation.Western

Australia’ssimilarStatelegislationcameintooperation7yearspriortothe

Commonwealthlegislation.Itisausefulsourceofjurisprudence.

Legislation

TherelevantlegislationisPartVIIIABFamilyLawAct1975(Cth)(“FLA”)and

Division5AFamilyCourtAct1977(WA),thelatterwhichisreadtogetherwith

theInterpretationAct1984(WA).

FamilyLawAct1975 InterpretationAct1984(WA)&FamilyCourtAct


2


Meaningofdefactorelationship

s.4AA(1)apersonisinadefactorelationshipwithanotherpersonif:

13A(1)Areferenceinawrittenlawtoadefactorelationshipshallbeconstruedasareferencetoarelationship(otherthanalegalmarriage)between2personswholivetogetherinamarriage‐likerelationship.

(a)thepersonsarenotlegallymarriedtoeachother;and

s.13A(1)notlegallymarried

(b)thepersonsarenotrelatedbyfamily;and

(c)havingregardtoallthecircumstancesoftheirrelationship,theyhavearelationshipasacouplelivingtogetheronagenuinedomesticbasis.

Paragraph(c)haseffectsubjecttoparagraph5.

2personswholivetogetherinamarriage‐likerelationship:s.13A(1)

Workingoutifpersonshavearelationshipasacouplelivingtogetheronagenuinedomesticbasis

Indicatorsofadefactorelationship

4AA(2)Thosecircumstancesmayincludeanyorallofthefollowing:

13(2)‐Thefollowingfactorsareindicatorsofwhetherornotadefactorelationshipexistsbetween2persons,butarenotessential:

(a)thedurationoftherelationship (a)thelengthoftherelationshipbetweenthem;

(b)whetherthe2personshaveresidedtogether

(b)thenatureandextentoftheircommonresidence;

(c)thenatureandextentofcommonresidence;

(c)whetherasexualrelationshipexists;

(d)whetherthereis,orhasbeen,asexualrelationshipbetweenthem;

(d)thedegreeoffinancialdependenceorinterdependence,andanyarrangementsforfinancialsupport,betweenthem;

(e)thedegreeoffinancialdependenceorinterdependence,andanyarrangementsforfinancialsupport,betweenthem;

(e)theownership,useandacquisitionoftheirproperty;

(f)theownership,useandacquisitionoftheirproperty(includingpropertytheyownindividually);

(f)thedegreeofmutualcommitmenttoasharedlife;

(g)thedegreeofmutualcommitmentbythemtoasharedlife;

(g)whethertherelationshipisorwas


3


registeredunderaprescribedlawofaStateorTerritoryasaprescribedkindofrelationship

(h)thecareandsupportofchildren (h)whethertheycareforandsupportchildren;

(i)thepublicaspectsoftherelationship

s.205Z(3)mattersforconsiderationnotlimited.

Noparticularfinding

4AA(3)Noparticularfindinginrelationtoanycircumstanceistoberegardedasnecessaryindecidingwhetherthepersonshaveadefactorelationship.

13A(2)‐Thefactorsareindicatorsofwhetherornotadefactorelationshipexistsbetween2persons,butarenotessential.

Mattersandweight

4AA(4)Acourtdeterminingwhetheradefactorelationshipexistsisentitledtohaveregardtosuchmatters,andtoattachsuchweighttoanymatter,asmayseemappropriatetothecourtinthecircumstancesofthecase.

Nogenderrequirement

4AA(5)ForthepurposesofthisAct:(a)adefactorelationshipcanexist

between2personsofdifferentsexesandbetween2personsofthesamesex;

s.13A(3)(a)itdoesnotmatterwhetherthepersonsaredifferentsexesorthesamesex.

Morethanonerelationship

4AA(5)ForthepurposesofthisAct:(b)adefactorelationshipcanexist

evenifoneofthepersonsislegallymarriedtosomeoneelseorinanotherdefactorelationship.

13A(3)(b)Itdoesnotmatterwhethereitherofthepersonsislegallymarriedtosomeoneelseorinanotherdefactorelationship.

Requirementsforjurisdiction

s.90SB(a)‐Theperiodortotalperiodofthedefactorelationshipmustbeatleast2years;OR

s.205Z(1)(a)‐Defactorelationshipofatleast2years;OR

s.90SB(b)–Thereisachildofthedefactorelationship;OR

s.205Z(1)(b)–thereisachildofthedefactorelationshipwhoisnot18


4


yearsandfailuretomakeanorderwouldresultinaseriousinjusticetothepartnercaringorresponsibleforthechild;OR

s.90SB(c)–theapplicanthasmadesubstantialcontributionsofthekindmentionedinparagraph90SM(4)(a),(b)or(c);andafailuretomakeadeclarationwouldresultinseriousinjusticetotherelationship;OR

s.205Z(1)(c)‐Defactopartnerwhoappliesfortheordermadesubstantialcontributionsofthekindmentionedins.205ZG(4)(a),(b)and(c)andfailuretomaketheorderwouldresultinaseriousinjusticetothepartner.

s.90SB(d)therelationshipisorwasregisteredunderaprescribedlawofaStateorTerritory;

Geographicalconnection

s.90RGOneofthepartiesmustbeordinarilyresidenceaparticipatingjurisdictionwhentheproceedingscommenced.

s.205X(a)thatoneorbothofthepartiestotheapplicationwereresidentinWAonthedaytheapplicationwasmade;AND

s.90SK(1)inorderfortheCourttomakeadeclarationinrelationtopropertyoranorderfordivisionofpropertytheCourtmustbesatisfiedof:(a)eitherorbothpartieswere

ordinarilyresidentinaparticipatingjurisdictionwhentheapplicationwasmade;

(b)thateither:(i)bothpartieswereordinarily

residentduringatleast1/3rdofthedefactorelationship;or

(ii)theapplicantmadesubstantialcontributionsinthedefactorelationship

inoneormoreStatesorTerritoriesthatareparticipatingjurisdictionsattheapplicationtime.

s.205X(b)(i)bothpartieshaveresidedinWAforatleast1/3rdofthedurationoftheirrelationship;OR

s.205X(b)(ii)substantialcontributionsofthekindreferredtoins.205ZG(4)(a),(b)or(c)havebeenmadeintheStatebytheapplicant.

205YWhereacourtissatisfiedastothemattersspecifiedinsection205X(a)and(b),itmaymakeanorderunderthisDivisionbyreasonoffactsandcircumstancesevenifthosefacts


5


andcircumstances,orsomeofthem,tookplacebeforethedayonwhichtheapplicationwasmadeoroutsidetheState

Commencementofjurisdiction

1March2009(QLD,NSW,Vic,Tas) 1December20021July2010SouthAustralia

Canaggregateperiods?

Yes Yes s.205Z(2)Indecidingwhetherthere

hasbeenadefactorelationshipbetweenthepartnersforatleast2years,thecourtmustconsiderwhethertherewasanybreakinthecontinuityoftherelationshipand,ifso,thelengthofthebreakandtheextentofthebreakdownintherelationship.s.205Z(3)Subsection(2)doesnotlimitthemattersthecourtmayconsider.

Canincludeperiodspriortocommencementofjurisdiction

Yes. Section90SBFLAallowsan

aggregationofperiodssothatthequalifyingperiodof2yearscanbemet,notwithstandingthatoneormoreoftheperiodsoccurredbeforethecommencementofthelegislation,andsomeafter(Dahl&Hamblin(2011)FLC93‐480andFenton&Marvel[2012]FamCAFC150)

Yes:sees.205Y Doesnotincludeadefacto

relationshipthatendedpriortothecommencementofjurisdiction:s.205U(2)

Jurisdictionalfact

Thefindingofthethresholdissueisinthenatureofajurisdictionalfact.Thatis,

itsfindingenlivensthepowerofthedecisionmakertoexerciseadiscretion.


6

MurphyJinJonahandWhite[2011]FamCA2211at39citingtheHighCourtin

CorporationoftheCityofEnfieldvDevelopmentAssessmentCommission

(2000)199CLR135at148.

ThismeansthatthereisalimittotheordersthattheCourtcanmakependinga

findingofjurisdiction.Thisalsomeansthatitisvitalthattheevidenceleadin

supportoforagainstanyfindingofjurisdictionisinanadmissibleform.The

rulesofevidenceapplyandwhatisatstakeisafindingofjurisdiction;a

potentiallyknockoutpunch.Lawyersneedtobeawareofwhobearstheonusof

proofandthestandardofproof.Considerationneedstobegiventotheprobative

valueoftheevidence.Thefactorsarebroadandthediscretioniswideandthe

caselawrevealshowwidelythediscretionisapplied.Thereismuchresulting

uncertaintyinthisarea.

Thegreyareas

Theareasthatappeartocausethemostdifficultyare:

1. Thenatureandextentofacommonresidence;

2. Thecommitmenttoasharedlife;and

3. Thepublicaspectsoftherelationship.

ThisisnotsurprisingasHisHonourJusticeCronininVaughan&Bele[2011]

FamCA436at[11]‐[13]statedthatitisthepartieswhodefinethenatureoftheir

relationship.Itmayevolveandalterdramaticallyovertime.

Selectedcasesfrom2012and2013:

FullCourtoftheFamilyCourtofAustralia

JonahandWhite[2012]FamCAFC200May,Strickland,Ainslie‐WallaceJJ

FamilyCourtofAustralia

EsdaleandSchenk[2012]FamCA111MurphyJ

WallandMitchell[2012]FamCA114JohnstonJ

Taisha&Pengandanor[2012]FamCA385CroninJ

AllenbyandKimble[2012]FamCA614MurphyJ

1WhichwasupheldbytheFullCourtinJonah&White[2012]FamCAFC200


7

MalcherandSeares[2012]FamCA643StevensonJ

KazamaandBritton[2013]FamCA4WattsJ

VolenandBackstrom[2013]FamCA40O’ReillyJ

TingandFingal[2013]FamCA29CroninJ

JacobandLawrence[2013]FamCA188MacmillanJ

Asprey&Delamarre[2013]FamCA214ClearyJ

FamilyCourtofWesternAustralia

ShelleyandMarkhov[2012]FWCA68CrisfordJ

FederalCircuitCourt

HouliandLaidler[2012]FMCAfam636DemackFM

DandridgeandBarren[2012]FMCAfam141McGuireFM

BettsandSheriff[2012]FMCAfam617BaumannFM

MillerandTrent[2011]FMCAfam324CoatesFM

BourkeandGolby[2013]FMCAfam228RobertsFM

GissingandSheffield[2012]FMCAfam1111O’SullivanFM

FullCourtoftheFamilyCourtofAustralia

JonahandWhite[2012]FamCAFC200,(2012)FLC93‐522May,Strickland,

Ainslie‐WallaceJJ

Ms.JonahbeganworkinginMr.White’sbusinessin1992andtheybegana

sexualrelationshipthatcontinueduntilearly2009.Mr.Whitewasmarried

throughouttheperiodoftheparties’relationshipandlivingwithhiswifeand

children.Thepartieskepttheirrelationshipsecret,maintainingseparatehomes

andhouseholds.Ms.Jonahsoughtadeclarationthatthepartieswereinade

factorelationshipfromAugust1996untilJune2009.Mr.Whiteassertedthatthe

relationshipwasanaffairandnotadefactorelationship.Whatwasinteresting

wasthatnotsurprisingly,thepartiesdidnotspendsignificanttimetogether:


8

sometimes2‐3daysevery2ndor3rdweek,travellingoverseastogetheroncefor

about2½weeksandotheroccasionsofabout2weeks.

HisHonourJusticeMurphy,thetrialjudge,setouttheenquirythattheCourtis

tomakewhendeterminingwhetherornotadefactorelationshipexists:

60.Inmyopinion,thekeytothatdefinition[defactorelationship]isthe

manifestationofarelationshipwhere“thepartieshavesomergedtheir

livesthattheywere,forallpracticalpurposes,“livingtogether”asa

coupleonagenuinedomesticbasis.”Itisthemanifestationof

“coupledom”;whichinvolvedthemergeroftwolivesasjustdescribed,

thatisthecoreofthedefactorelationshipasdefinedandtowhich,each

ofthestatutoryfactors(andothersthatmightapplytoaparticular

relationship)aredirected.”

MurphyJconfirmed,whatcouldbeassumedfromthelegislation,thatexclusivity

isnotanecessaryrequirementofadefactorelationship,asMr.Whitehad

maintainedhismarriage.[para62oftrialjudgment]

Astothequestionoftheextenttowhichpartiesneededtolivetogether,His

Honoursaidrelevantlyatparagraphs65‐66ofthejudgment,thefactthatthe

partieslivedinthesameresidencefor“onlyasmallpartofeachweek”doesnot

excludethepossibilitythattheywerelivingtogetheronagenuinedomestic

basis.Themaintenanceofseparateresidencesisnotnecessarilyinconsistent

withthepartieshavingadefactorelationship.ForHisHonourtheissuewasone

ofthenatureoftheunion,ratherthanhowitmanifestsitselfinquantitiesof

time.Themergeroftwoindividuallivesintoacouplethatisimportant.

HisHonourfoundthattherewasnodefactorelationshipandputsignificant

weightonthelackofreputationasacouple,thelackofsocialinvolvementin

eachother’slivesandlackofpublicaspectoftheirrelationship.HisHonour

appearedtonotbeconcernedaboutthelimitedtimethatthepartieshadspent

together.

HisHonourpointedtoanumberofindicia,whichheidentifiedaspointingtothe

conclusionthattherewasnodefactorelationship.TheFullCourtreferredto

thesefindingsatpara25oftheirjudgment:


9

a. Eachofthepartieskeptandmaintainedahouseholddistinctfromthe

other;

b. Intherespondent’scase,thathouseholdinvolvedthemaintenanceof

familyrelationshipsincludingthesupportofchildren;

c. Therewasnorelationshiporintendedrelationshipbetweenthe

applicantandtherespondent’schildren;

d. Therelationshipwasclandestine,timewasnotspentsocializingasa

couple;

e. Therespondentcontinuedtoemphasisethelimitsoftherelationship

withtheapplicant,andtoldherthatifhehadtomakeachoice,he

wouldchoosehiswife;

f. Despiteregularmonthlypaymentsandapaymentof$24,000there

wasnojointbankaccountandnojointinvestments;

g. Thepartiesrarelymixedwitheachother’sfriends;

h. Thepartiesdidnotmixwiththerespondent’sbusinessassociates;

i. Therewasvirtuallynoinvolvementbytherespondentinthe

applicant’slife;

j. Therespondentspentverylittletimewiththeapplicant’sfamily;and

k. Therewereveryfewpublicaspectstotheirrelationship.

TheFullCourtemphasizedthatthetouchstoneofthedefactorelationshipisthe

partiesbeinga“couplelivingtogetheronagenuinedomesticbasis.”[para32]

TheFullCourtagreedthatpartiescouldfulfilltherequirementsofadefacto

relationshipwheretheyhavelivedtogetherforlimitedperiodsprovidedthat

otherindiciaorthecircumstancesofthematterenableafindingthattheywere

livingtogetheronagenuinedomesticbasis.[para40]

Theapplicantarguedthatthepartieswerelivingtogether“throughtheir

emotionalcommunionwhichoccurrednotonlyineachother’sphysicalpresence,

butbytelephoneandotherwise.”TheFullCourtrejectedthisargumentandheld

thattheywere“notpersuadedthat“emotionalcommunion”issufficienttofall

withinthedefinitionof“livingtogether”.[atparas41‐42]


10

TheFullCourtheldthatHisHonour’sconclusionthattheproperfocusofthe

enquiryisonthenatureandqualityoftheassertedrelationshipratherthana

quantificationoftimespenttogetherwasentirelycorrect.[para44]

TheFullCourtheldthatHisHonour’sfindingsaboutthelackofpublicaspectsof

therelationshipwasalsoopentoHisHonourontheevidence.Theappealwas

dismissed.

Thisisthemostsignificantdecisionof2012.Itsimportanceistoclearlydefine

thenatureoftheenquirytobeundertakenbytheCourt,thatistoexaminethe

natureandqualityoftherelationshipratherthanaquantificationoftimespent.

TheFullCourt’sconfirmationthatarelationshipinwhichthepartieslive

togetherforlimitedperiodsdoesnotdisqualifythemfromafindingofbeingina

defactorelationshipisveryimportant;particularlyinthefactualcontextofthis

casewherethepartiesdidnotspendagreatdealoftimetogether.

Thiscasehasopenedupthedefinitionofdefactorelationships.

FamilyCourtofAustralia

EsdaleandSchenk[2012]FamCA111MurphyJ[interimcosts]

Thiswasaninterimhearingsomeweekspriortoafinalhearingtodeterminethe

questionofjurisdiction.Theapplicantassertedthatthepartieswereinadefacto

relationshipfrom2006.Therespondentdeniesanysuchrelationships,asserting

thattheapplicantwashisfull‐timecarerforwhichshewaspaidawage.

Theapplicantsoughtanorderfor$65,000eitherasinterimcosts(s.117)or

partialpropertysettlement(s.90SM).

HisHonourheldthatthejurisdictionoftheCourt“carrieswithitthepowerto

determinetheexistenceorotherwiseoffactsuponwhichitsjurisdiction

depends.”[para11]

However,HisHonourquotedJusticesWilsonandDawsoninRvRoss‐Jones&

Marinovich;ExparteGreene(1984)156CLR185at213:

The power to determine the existence of jurisdictional facts is not a power which in any way extends the jurisdiction of Court. If a matter is beyond the jurisdiction of a Court, it cannot be brought within jurisdiction for the


11

purpose of granting interlocutory relief. That proposition appears to us, with all respect, to be self-evident and decisive.

HisHonourheldthattheCourtdidnothavejurisdictiontomakeanorderunder

s.90SMsayinginparagraphs16to18:

16.Proceedingsofthetypewhichwillbetriedinabouteightweeksareproceedingsdeterminingjurisdictionalfacts.Inmyview,theCourthasjurisdictiontograntinterlocutoryreliefinrespectofthoseproceedings.Thatis,theCourthasjurisdictiontograntinterlocutoryreliefinrespectoftheprimaryproceedingswhichareproceedingsforthedeterminationoftherequisitejurisdictionalfacts.

17.Thecircumstancesinwhichacourtmaygrantinterlocutoryreliefuponsatisfactionofaprimafaciecasethatjurisdictionexistsarelimitedandessentiallyconfinedtourgentcaseswhere,“…thecircumstancespointcompellinglytoaneedtopreservethestatusquoasaninterimmeasurependingahearingtodeterminewhetherinterlocutoryreliefshouldbegranted.”(Ross‐Jonesat213perWilsonandDawsonJJ).

18.Inmyview,theCourt’sjurisdictionandpowertomakeinterlocutoryordersinthecircumstancesunderconsiderationisconfinedtopowersancillarytothejurisdictionandpowertomakeordersdeterminingwhethertheCourthasjurisdiction.ThisCourtdoesnothavejurisdictionorpowertomakeinterlocutoryorderswithrespecttosections90SMor90SS,pendingadeterminationofwhetherthereisadefactofinancialcause.

HisHonourheldthattheCourthadjurisdictiontomakeanorderforinterim

costsunders.117atparagraph22:

WheretheCourthasinherentjurisdiction,suchasthejurisdictionto

decidethefactsuonwhichtheexistenceofjurisdictionarebased,the

Courthasallofthepowersnecessaryorancillarytothedeterminationof

thatissue.

HisHonourfoundthat“proceedingsunder[the]Act”ins.117includes

proceedingsbroughttodetermineifthereisjurisdictioninrespectofthe

proceedings.[para23]

HisHonourultimatelydeclinedtomakeacostsorder.HisHonoursaidthatthe

exerciseofthecostspowerdoesnotjustmeanconsideringthemattersin

s.117(2A);theCourtshouldhave“properregard”tos.117(1)whichprescribes


12

thateachpartyshouldbeartheirowncosts.Heheldthateveninproceedings

wherethereisnoissueofjurisdictionandtheapplicantreceivinganawarditis

notcertainthatthecostspowerwillbeexercisedas“Section117(1)remains..an

obstaclethatmustbeovercome.”Thisisevenmorethecasewhenjurisdictionis

inissue.

Insummary,itseemsthatwhilethereisthepower,itisunlikelytobeexercised.

WallandMitchell[2012]FamCA114JohnstonJ(substantialcontributions)

Ms.Wallassertedthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipfor2years.Mr.

Mitchelldeniedthatthepartieswereeverinadefactorelationship,butrather

wereinanon/offboyfriend/girlfriendrelationshipfor4discreteperiods.The

partiesdidlivetogether.Theissuesweretheexistenceornotofthedefacto

relationshipandwhetherMs.Wallmadesubstantialcontributionscontemplated

bytheFLA.HisHonourconsideredthequestionoftheexistenceofthe

relationshipintwodistinctperiods.

HisHonouracceptedMr.Mitchell’sevidencethatMs.WallstayedwithMr.

Mitchelltwonightsperweekandheoccasionallywithher.Theydidnot

establishasharedresidence.WhileMr.Mitchellpaidformostthingswhenthey

wentout,therewasnoevidenceofanysharedfinancialrelationshipbetween

them.Theyhadnomutualproperty.HisHonourfoundthattherewas“some

levelofcommitmenttoasharedlife”butalsobehaviourthatwasinconsistent

withthis;suchasgoingoutwithotherpeople.OnceHisHonourfoundthatthere

wasnodefactorelationshipduringthefirstperiod,therecouldnothavebeena

2‐yearrelationship.Thecaseisnotparticularlyhelpfulasitturnedonthe

particularfactsandMs.Wall’scasewasnotstrong.

Thecaseismoreusefulforaddingtoalineofauthorityabout“substantial

contributions”.HisHonourfollowedthedecisionsofCoatesFMinMillerand

Trent[2011]FMCAfam324whichhadfollowedthedecisionofHoldenCJinV

andK[2005]FCWA80whereatpara21ChiefJudgeHoldenheld:

“NotwithstandingIamoftheviewthatacontributiontodomesticdutiesin

circumstancessuchasexistinthiscasewheretherewerenodependent


13

childrenoverashortperiodoftimeoughtnottobeseentobesubstantial.In

myview,substantialmeanssomethingmorethanusualorordinary.Inmy

view,[thesection]isaimedatmoreexceptionalcircumstanceswhereserious

injusticemaybecausedbytheapplication[oftherelevantprovision].”

HisHonourdidnotfindthatMs.Wallmadesubstantialcontributions.Her

financialcontributionswereextremelylimitedandnotasrequiredunderthe

FLA.

Taisha&Peng&anor[2012]FamCA385CroninJ(burden&standardof

proof)

Thepartieswereindisputeabouttheexistenceofa17yearallegeddefacto

relationship.HisHonourfoundthattheapplicantboretheonusofproofandthat

thestandardofprooftobeappliedwasthebalanceofprobabilities.

AllenbyandKimble[2012]FamCA614MurphyJ

Thepartieswereindisputeastowhethertherewasadefactorelationshipof10

years.ThepartiesdidlivetogetherinitiallyandMr.KimblesoughtthatMs.

AllenbysignadefactopropertyagreementunderQueenslandlawatthetime.

Ms.Allenbymovedoutafterabout3years.ShethenmovedbackinwithMr.

Kimble.Allinallthepartieslivedtogetherforabout5years.Ms.Allenbyhad

claimedCentrelinkbenefitsanddeniedtoCentrelinkthatshewasinadefacto

relationshipformuchoftheparties’relationship.MsAllenby’srepresentations

toCentrelinkdidnotdeterminethematterforHisHonour;hefounditlikelythat

herstatementswerecompletelyfalseandthatshemadethemwithaviewto

obtainingabenefittowhichshewasnotentitled.

EvidenceuponwhichHisHonourplacedimportanceinfindingadefacto

relationshipwas:

1. Hefoundthattherelationshipmovedfromaphaseinwhichtheparties

maintainedtheirseparateness,tocohabitation;

2. Thefactthattheysharedthemasterbedroom;


14

3. EmailspassingbetweenMr.Kimble’sdaughterandMs.AllenbywhileMr.

Kimbleandhisdaughterwereoverseas,keepingMs.Allenbyuptodatewith

theiractivitiesandlinkingtophotos.Thisshowedaninterminglingof

families.[paras81‐82]

4. Mr.KimblerenovatinghishometoallowMs.Allenbytoworktherewithout

herprovidinghimwithanycompensation;[para91]

5. Theinvolvementofeachotherwiththeirrespectivechildrenandfamilies

includingvisitingtheotherparty’sfamilymembers;

6. Thedrawingofacohabitationagreementanditbeingpursued18months

afterbeingraisedandaftercohabitationcommenced;

7. Emailspassingbetweenthepartiesaboutdomesticandfamilyissues;

“focusingupontheminutiaeredolentofdomesticlife.”[para82]and

8. ThefindingthatthereasonforMr.Kimblefailingtocallhissolicitors

solicitorswasthattheirevidencewouldnothaveassistedhiscase.

Thelastfindingactsasanimportantremindertherulesofevidenceinthisand

othercases.Inthedraftdefactoagreement,whichwasdrawnbyMr.Kimble’s

solicitors,hestatedthatthedefactorelationshipstartedin2004.Hesaidin

evidencethathewasunderamisapprehensionwhengivinginstructionstohis

solicitorsashethoughtthatthedatethepartiesbegansharingacommon

residencewhilehavingasexualrelationshipwasconsideredtobethe

commencementofadefactorelationship.Mr.Kimbledidnotcallhissolicitorat

thetimetogiveevidenceintheproceedingsandcorroboratehisexplanation.

NotsurprisinglyMr.Kimblewasfoundtohavewaivedprivilegeonthisissue.

Mr.Kimble’scounselarguedthatitwasuptoMs.Allenby’scounseltocallMr.

Kimble’sformersolicitorifshewantedtochallengeMr.Kimble’sevidenceon

thisissue.HisHonourfoundthatthiswasnotcorrectandtheevidentiaryburden

laywithMr.Kimble.HisHonourfoundthatitwassignificantthatMrKimble

failedtocallthisevidenceandexplaintheabsenceoftheevidence[paras69‐71].

HisHonourmadeafindingunderJonesandDunkel(1959)101CLR298,thatthe

reasonwhyMrKimblehadnotcalledtheevidencefromhisprevioussolicitoris

becausetheevidencewouldnothaveassistedMr.Kimble’scase.


15

MalcherandSeares[2012]FamCA643StevensonJ

Theissuefordeterminationinthismatterwasthelengthoftheparties’defacto

relationship.Theapplicantasserteditwas4½yearsfromJune2007until

November2011.Therespondentsaidthattherelationshipwasa“social/sexual”

relationshiponlyandthatthepartieshadonlylivedtogetherfor11months.It

wascommongroundthatthepartiesdidnotlivetogetheronafull‐timebasis.

Thepartiesspenttimewiththeapplicant’schildrenandtherespondentallowed

theapplicant,togetherwithhischildren,touseapropertyandskilodgefor

regularweekendsandholidaysoveraboutafour‐yearperiod.Sheaccompanied

theapplicantandhischildrenonabout7occasions.

HerHonourhaddifficultywiththeconceptthata“social/sexual”relationship

“includesmutualcareofandenjoymentofactivitieswithoneparty’schildrenover

thatperiodoftime.”(abouta4yearperiod)[para45]

HerHonourfoundthattherewasadefactorelationshipfromJune2007until

November2011.Shealsoreliedupontherespondentmakingprovisionforthe

applicantinherWillandrelieduponthesocialaspectsoftheparties’

relationship.

Kazama&Britton[2013]FamCA4WattsJ

Theapplicantassertedthatsheandtherespondentwereinadefacto

relationshipfromNovember2002toSeptember2009.Therespondentasserted

thatthedefactorelationshipwasonlybetween2006and2009.Thepartieshad

neverestablishedacommonresidence;theapplicant’scasewasthattheparties

spentsignificanttimetogetherattherespondent’shomeinnorthQLD.The

partiesalsospentsignificanttimetogetheronholidays.HisHonourfollowedthe

reasoningofMurphyJinJonah&Whiteinholdingthatthisdidnotprecludea

findingofadefactorelationship.

TherespondentsponsoredtheapplicanttomovetoAustraliaonaspousevisa.

TherespondentmaderepresentationstotheDepartmentofImmigrationthat


16

thepartiescommencedadefactorelationshipin2002.Attrialtherespondent

saidthathetoldtheDepartmentthisinformationtosecuretheapplicant’s

immigrationstatusanditwasfalse.HisHonourdeclinedtoacceptevidencefrom

therespondentthatcontradictedtheevidencethathegavetotheDepartmentof

Immigration.Heconsideredthattherespondent,iftellingthetruth,had

committedanillegalactandthatthesanctionagainsttherespondentwasto

allowtheapplicanttopursueherclaimunders.90SMFLA.HisHonour

consideredthatthissanctionwasnotdisproportionatetotheseriousnessofthe

illegalityinwhichtherespondentassertedthathewasinvolved.[para87]

Despitethepartiesmaintainingseparateresidences,HisHonourfoundthatthe

defactorelationshipexistedfrom2002to2009.HisHonourplacedemphasison

therespondentprovidingsignificantfinancialsupporttotheapplicantandher

childrentotaling$135,000.Theexpenseswererent,otherexpensesforthe

applicant,theapplicant’sdaughter’suniversityfees,herrentandacar.The

partieswerealsopubliclyopenabouttheirrelationshipandhereferredtothe

mattersaboveregardingtherespondent’srepresentations.

VolenandBackstrom[2013]FamCA40O’ReillyJ

Ms.Volenassertedthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipfrom2005to

2010.Ms.Backstromdeniedthis;howeversheacknowledgedadefacto

relationshipfromEaster2006toNovember2007.Theimportantissuewas

whethertherewasadefactorelationshipinexistenceatthetimeofthe

commencementofthelegislation:1March2009.Afeatureoftherelationship

wasthattherespondentwasinvolvedinon‐line“intimateconversationsand

liaisons”withotherwomenduringthelatterpartoftheassertedrelationship

andwiththeapplicant’sknowledge.Theapplicantacknowledgedsleepingina

separatebedroomorleavingthepropertyfordaysatatimeatdifferenttimesto

givetherespondentspace.Therespondentassertedthatshetriedtoremovethe

applicantforabout2½yearswiththeapplicantrefusingtoacceptthatthe

respondentdidn’twantarelationship.


17

HerHonourhadtoconsiderwhentherelationshipterminated.Asignificant

issueforherHonourwaswhetherthereisatlawanecessityforonepartyto

communicatetotheotheranintentiontoendadefactorelationship.

HerHonourhadregardtoadecisionofStevensonJinClisbeyandViges[2011]

FamCA611.StevensonJreferredtoalineofauthorityfromPavey(1976)FLC

90‐051,Todd&Todd(No.2)(1976)FLC90‐008whichwasappliedbyMcGuire

FMinAitken&DeaconFMCAfam35.

McGuireFM2summarizedtherequirementsforseparationasfollows:

l. Therearethreeelementsrequiredforseparation:

i. Thedevelopmentofanintentiontoseparate;whichneednot

bemutual;

ii. Thecommunicationofthatintentiontotheotherparty;which

shouldbeunambiguousandunconditionalandshouldbe

viewedobjectively;and

iii. Someformofactionuponthedeterminationtoseparate.

InClisbeyStevensonJreferredtoWatsonJinToddandTodd(No.2)whoalso

consideredcommunicationoftheintentiontobeanabsoluterequirement(at

75,079).However,StevensonJalsoreferredtodecisionssuchasHibbersonand

George12FamLR725inwhichcommunicationoftheintentionwasnot

required.3

O’ReillyJfoundthatitwasnotappropriatetoapplydecisionswhichrelatetothe

endofamarriagetodefactorelationships.[para31]

HerHonourfollowedthedecisionofCroninJinVaughan&Bele[2011]FamCA

436at[11]‐[13]inwhichCroninJsaid:

[13] “…thereisadistinctionbetweenactionswhichconnoteunhappiness

inarelationshipandtheterminationofit.Terminationhasadistinctfinality

aboutitbutitmustbesuchthatbothpartiesacknowledgebutnot

2AsHisHonourthenwas.3HibbersonandGeorgewasfollowedbytheQueenslandCourtofAppealinS&B[2004]QCA449(26November2004)


18

necessarilyaccept,thatatleastoneofthemhasdecidedtopermanentlyend

therelationship.”

HerHonourfoundthatthepartieshadcommencedadefactorelationship

betweenDecember2005andEaster2006onthebasisthat:

1. Theyhadacommonresidence;theapplicanthadmovedherclothesanda

largenumberofherpersonalandfarmpossessionsintothefarm;they

preparedandatemealstogether;theysharedthefarmandotherchores;

theyhadcommencedtomake“mutualdecisions”aboutfarmmatters;

2. Theysharedabedandhadasexualrelationshipwhichexistedforthe

wholeoftheperiod;

3. Therewasnofinancialdependenceorinterdependence,buttheparties

agreedthattheapplicantwouldgiveupheremploymentandliveatthe

farm;

4. Theyhadformedalifeplan,withmutualcommitmenttoasharedlifeand

commencedtoexecuteit;

5. Theyattendedtopublicaspectsoflifeaslifepartners.

ThemattersthatHerHonourfoundimportantindeterminingwhenthe

relationshipendedwere:

1. TheapplicanthavingexecutedanEnduringPowerofAttorneyinfavour

oftherespondentinFebruary2008,whichtherespondentaccepted.Her

Honourfindingitunlikelythattherespondentwouldhaveacceptedthe

poweraftertherelationshipwasover;

2. TherespondentnotchangingherWilltoremovetheapplicantuntilApril

2010;and

3. Therespondent,aformerpublicservantintheJusticeDepartment,not

takingactiontoremovetheapplicantfromherhomefor2½years;

despiteherassertionsthatshewantedtheapplicantgone.

HerHonourfoundthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipbetween

November2007and22April2010onthebasisthat:


19

1. Theyhadacontinuouscommonresidencedespiteholidaysandother

visitsaway,andshorttimesspentawaytogivetherespondent“space”.

Bothshareddomesticandfarmchores.

2. Asexualrelationshipduringthatperiod;

3. Financialinterdependence;

4. Theuseofthefarmandanotherpropertyfortheirmutualpurposes;

5. Amutualcommitmenttoasharedlife:

a. Despitetherespondenttellingtheapplicanttoleave;whichwason

occasionsandnotacontinuouspattern;

b. Therespondentnottakingstepstoevicttheapplicantwasnotasa

resultoftheapplicant’sbullyingorintimidationbutasaresultofthe

respondent’scommitmenttotherelationshipanddependenceuponit,

particularlyinlightofherphysicalandhealthdifficulties;

c. Emailspassingfromtherespondenttotheapplicantexpressing

genuineemotionandintent;and

6. Thepublicaspectsoftheirrelationshipwerelimitedtolocallifeandstock

sales.

TingandFingal[2013]FamCA29CroninJ[Interimorders]

Ms.Tingallegedan8‐yeardefactorelationship.Mr.Fingaldeniedtheexistence

ofadefactorelationship,statingthattheylivedinthesamehousebutwere

neverintimate.Ms.TinglookedafterMr.Fingal’shouseandhisanimalswhilehe

travelledtoIndonesiatobewithhiswifeandchildren.Ms.Tingsoughtinterim

andfinalordersforpropertysettlementandspousalmaintenance.

ThequestionforHisHonourwaswhetherhecouldmakeinterimordersfor

spousalmaintenancewhentheexistenceofthedefactorelationshiphadnot

beendetermined.

HisHonourheldthattheCourthasjurisdictiontodeterminewhetherornot

therearesufficientfactsuponwhichjurisdictiondepends,(para11followingthe

decisionofReRoss‐Jones;exparteGreen(1984)156CLR185.Wilsonand


20

DawsonheldthatthispowerdidnotextendthejurisdictionoftheCourt:“Ifa

matterisbeyondthejurisdictionofacourt,itcannotbebroughtwithinjurisdiction

forthepurposesofgrantinginterlocutoryrelief.”Atparagraph13,HisHonour

saidthattheremustbeaprimafaciecasethatjurisdictionexistsandinorderfor

thecourttoexercisejurisdictionforinterlocutoryrelief,therehadtobe

compellingcircumstancesshowinganeedtopreservethestatusquo.

TheCourtdoesnothavethepowertomakeordersinPartVIIIABonaninterim

basisunlessthecourtissatisfiedthatthereisadefactorelationship.Therefore

thereisnopowertomakeordersforinterimmaintenanceorinterimproperty

settlement.

HisHonourexpressedconcernaboutsuchordersbeingabletobereverseddue

totheapplicantbeingimpecunious.

HisHonouralsoheldthatinsuchcircumstancesinjunctionsshouldonlybemade

“wherethereisaseriousprospectthattherespondentwouldtakeactiontothwart

theapplicanthavingthebenefitofanyjudgment.”(para41).Thisfollowstheline

ofauthorityfromWaughandWaugh.

Mr.Fingaldidhoweverhavetheobligationsofanyotherpartyinafinancial

mattertoprovidediscovery.

JacobandLawrence[2013]FamCA188MacmillanJ

ItwascommongroundthatthepartiesmetonaninternetdatingsiteinAugust

2009,movedintogetherinSeptember2010andseparatedundertheoneroof

on14October2011.Theissuefordeterminationwaswhetherthepartieswere

inadefactorelationshipasat14October2009andifnot,hadtheapplicant

madesubstantialcontributionstotherelationshipandthatthefailuretomake

orderssoughtbyherwouldresultinseriousinjusticetoher.

HerHonourfoundthatsomeemailspassingbetweenthepartiesandone

betweentherespondentandhisfamilyweretellingaboutthenatureoftheir

relationshipatthetime.HerHonourfoundthattherewasnotacommitmenttoa

sharedlifeintheearlystagesoftherelationshipandthatinfactitwasthe

applicantwhodemonstratedthelackofcommitment.


21

Theapplicantsaidthatshemadesubstantialcontributionsintheformof

meetingalloftheparties’jointhouseholdexpensesincludingmostofthegrocery

expensesandfoodsupplies,allofficeexpensesrelatingtotherespondent’s

businessandpaidformuchoftheirentertainment.Shealsodeposedto

undertakingsomeworkintherespondent’sbusiness,maintainingthehousehold

bydoingthevastmajorityofcooking,mostofthecleaning,feedingandgrooming

thedogs,maintainingthegardenandresearchingandsourcingitemstoimprove

theproperty.

HerHonourfoundthatevenifsheacceptedtheapplicant’sevidenceatits

highest,hercontributionswerenot“substantial.”Hercontributionstothe

householdandtheparties’lifestylewerenotanythingexceptionalandhadtobe

viewedinthecontextofcontributionsmadebytherespondent.

Theapplicantarguedthathersubstantialcontributionswerethesaleofher

propertyandherforgoneopportunityoffull‐timeemployment.Sheassertedthat

therespondentforcedhertosellherhomeandthathewasadamantthatshenot

obtainfull‐timework.

HerHonourheldthattocontributeisto“playapartintheachievementofa

result.”Meaningthateveniftheapplicanthadsoldherhomeorgivenup

employment,itiswhatfollowsfromtheactthatcounts,nottheactitself.Inthis

caseitwouldbethecontributionofthesaleproceedstoapropertypurchaseor

hersubsequentlyworkingintherespondent’sbusinessthatwouldbea

contribution.Forgoingemploymentopportunitiesandsellingahousearenot

contributionsofthekindreferredtoins.90SM(4)(a),(b)or(c).

HerHonourfoundthattheapplicanthadnotestablishedhercase.

Asprey&Delamarre[2013]FamCA214ClearyJ

Thepartieswereindisputeaboutanalleged9yeardefactorelationshipthatthe

applicantsaidwasfromMay2002toJanuary2011.Theyhadtwochildrenaged

5and2years.Thepartiesdidnotlivetogetherinthesamehouseforanyperiod

longerthan7weeksandthiswasonlyafterthebirthofeachchild.Theapplicant

spentmostweekendstogetherandotherspecialtimes.Theyhada“passionate”

disagreementabouthowtolivetogether,whichHerHonourconsidered


22

significant.HerHonourfoundthattheywantedtospendalltheirtimetogether

asafamily,eachontheirownterms.Theydisagreedaboutwheretolive:Sydney

ortheCentralCoastandwhethertheapplicantcouldcontinuetoworkfrom

homeiftheylivedintherespondent’shome.Thisongoingargumentabouthow

theywouldlivetogetherasafamilyreflectedamutualcommitmenttoashared

life.

HerHonourfoundthattherewasnofinancialdependencyandtheymaintained

separatebankaccounts.HerHonourconsideredthatthiswasnotuncommonin

modernrelationships.Theyeachpurchasedapropertyintheirownnameand

didnotpurchasepropertytogether.

Therespondentfailedtocallhisfamilytogiveevidence.HerHonouraccepted

thathewasclosetohisfamilyandinferredthattheyhadnotbeencalledastheir

evidencewouldnothaveassistedhiscase.HerHonournotesthattheparties

gaveanengravedclocktotherespondent’sparentsontheir50thwedding

anniversary.HerHonourfoundthattherespondentwouldnothaveincludeda

casualgirlfriendontheengravinginthatway.Againtherespondenttookthe

applicanttoafamilyfunctionaftertheirseparationashehadn’ttoldhisfamily

thattheyhadseparatedanddidn’twanttoworrythem.HerHonourconsidered

thatthisevidencedthe“positiveplacementtheapplicanthadintherespondent’s

family.”

Shefoundthattherewasacloseaffectionatebondbetweentheapplicantandat

leasttwooftherespondent’schildrenfromhismarriage.

HerHonourfoundthattherewasadefactorelationship.Sheplacedthegreatest

significanceonthefactthatthepartieshavetwochildrentogethertowhomthey

havebeencommittedparents.4

4Interestingtonotethatatellingpieceofevidencewasthatin2006therespondentcompleted

anapplicationtochangehishealthinsurancetoincludetheapplicant.


23

FamilyCourtofWesternAustralia

ShelleyandMarkhov[2012]FWCA68CrisfordJ

Ms.Shelleyassertedthatthepartieshadbeenina14‐yeardefactorelationship.

DrMarkhovdeniedanydefactorelationship.Ms.ShelleyandDrMarkhovspent

substantialamountoftimelivinginthesamehouseholdfrom1995toOctober

2008.Thehouseholdswereinpropertiesownedbyeachofthem.Theyalsohad

lengthyperiodswhentheylivedapart,upto8months.Theypaidrenttoeach

otherreligiously,whichwasnotacommercialrent.Theyhadsexualintercourse

overthatperiodbutdidnotalwaysshareabedroom.HerHonourfoundthatMs.

Shelleyusedanotherbedroom.Theysocializedtogethersometimes.Therewas

nofinancialintermingling,dependenceorsupport;theymaintainedtheirown

finances.DrMarkhovlookedforpotentialpartnersontheinternetandMs.

Shelleywasawareofthis.HetravelledtoRussiaandBulgaria,ostensiblylooking

forawife.Theyneveridentifiedeachotherastheirspouseordefactoinanytax

documents.Inimmigrationdocuments,Ms.ShelleyonlynominatedDrMarkhov

asanemergencycontacton2outof6occasions.Shealsotoldimmigrationthat

shedidnotintendtoremainlivinginAustraliaforthenext12monthsonone

occasion.Ms.ShelleywasnotinvolvedinthecareandsupportofDrMarkov’s

children.Sheneverattendedanyworkfunction,norwassheinvitedanddidnot

meethisbossof10years.Itappearsthattheypotentiallybehavedquite

differentlywhenineachother’ssocialcircles.WheninDrMarkhov’scircle,

peopledidnotknowthattheywereinarelationship.YetMs.Shelley’sfriends

believedthemtobeacouple.Theygenerallyholidayedseparatelyeachtravelling

totheircountryoforiginbutdidhavesomeholidaystogether.

WhatisalsoofinterestistheevidencethatHerHonourfoundequivocal:

1. Women’stoiletriesinthesecondbathroom(nottheoneusedbyDr

Markhov);

2. Women’sclothesinthesecond(notmainbedroom);and

3. Photographsofthepartiestogetherorwithotherpeople.Inthemainthey

werehappysnapstakenonsocialoccasionsorholidaysandwerestaged.


24

HerHonourfoundtheevidenceofeachpartytroubling[para12].However,the

mattersthatHerHonouridentifiedasimportantindeterminingthattherewas

notamarriage‐likerelationshipwere:

1. A“strikingfeature”oftherelationshipbeingthatoveranextendedperiod

oftimeDrMarkhovwasactivelyseekinganotherpartnerandthiswasnot

covert;(contrastwithVolen&Backstrom)

2. Ms.Shelley’sacceptanceofthisbehavior;

3. Neithertreatedtheotherofprimeimportance:

a) Theycameandwent;

b) Holidaysastheypleased;

c) Didnotinterminglefinances;

d) Maintainedstrongculturallinkswhichexcludedtheother;and

e) Playedlittlepartinthefamilylifeofeachother.

f) Theysimplylivedtogether.

Theywerefoundnottobeinadefactorelationship;butratherwere“friends

withbenefits”,withDrMarkhoveffectivelybidinghistime.[para222].

FederalCircuitCourt

HouliandLaidler[2012]FMCAfam636

MsHouliarguedthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipfromlate2001to

27July2009.MrLaidlerdeniedtheexistenceofadefactorelationship,saying

thatitdidn’treachthatstage.

HerHonourfoundthateachpartywasanhonestandthoughtfulwitnessand

theywerebothintelligentandgoodpeople.

Thepartieslivedinseparatepropertiesinseparatetowns,some150kmsapart.

MsHoulisoldherhometopurchaseapropertyclosertoMrLaidler.Intheend

MrLailderpurchasedaninvestmentpropertyinhissolename,inwhichMs

Houliandherchildrenlived.Hesaidthatthisprovidedhimwithaninvestment,

herwithahomeandfreeduphercapital.Therewasnoformallease.MsHouli

paidmoneytoMrLaidler,whichheclassifiedasrentinhistaxationrecords.Ms

Houlididsomepaintinganddecoratingoftheinvestmentproperty,describedby


25

HerHonourasinvestingherowntimeandenergyintheimprovementofthe

property.HerHonourfoundthattherewasasignificantdegreeoffinancial

relationshipbetweenthemprimarilyarisingbecauseofthepurchaseofthe

property,MsHoulitreatingthehouseinamannerwhichexceededtherightsof

anyusualtenantandresponsibilitiesofanyusuallandlord.

Thepartieshaddifferentlevelsofcommitmenttoasharedlife.HerHonour

acceptedthatMrLaidlerdidnotwantadefactorelationship.

Thepartiessawtheirownchildrenastheirresponsibility;however,MrLaidler

spentabouthalfoftheweekatMsHouli’shomewhereherchildrenlivedand

was“engagedinallhouseholdactivitiesasonewouldexpectfromthechildren’s

mother’spartner.”

Thepartiespresentedasacouple.

HerHonourfoundthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationship,despiteMr

Laidler’sacceptedviewoftheirrelationship.

DandridgeandBarren(2012)FMCAfam141McGuireFM

Theapplicantassertedthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipandthe

respondentassertedthattherelationshipdidnotgetbeyond“boyfriendand

girlfriend.”Thepartieshadasexualrelationshipover10yearsandtwochildren.

Itwascommongroundthattherespondentprovidedregularandsignificant

degreeoffinancialsupportoverthe10yearsandthepartiespresented

themselvespubliclyasacoupleandafamilyunit.

Theapplicantstatedthatthepartieslivedtogetherforperiods,ateitherparty’s

home.

Therespondentassertedthattheymaintainedseparatepremisesthroughoutthe

relationship.TheapplicantwasinreceiptofCentrelinkbenefitsandchild

supportandmaintainedthatshewasnotinadefactorelationshiporwas

supportedbytherespondent.Sheheldoutthroughsocialmediathatshewas

singleandopentoothersexualrelationships.Therewasnomutualfinancial

commitmentsuchasjointbankaccountsorcommonlyownedproperty.


26

Therespondentboughtandsoldanumberofresidencesduringtherelationship,

eachbeinginhisownname.Therewasnosuggestionthattheapplicantmade

anydirectfinancialcontributiontothepurchaseofanyrealestate.

Theapplicantadmittedincross‐examinationtomaintainingaseparaterented

residencefor6years.Thisimportantfactwasnotmentionedintheaffidavit.His

Honourwasverytroubledbytheapplicant’sfailuretodisclosethisandfound

theapplicant’sevidencemisleading.Therespondentgaveevidenceaboutthe

applicantbeinginreceiptofCentrelinkbenefitsthroughouttherelationshipand

receivingchildsupport;againtheapplicantdidnotmentionthisinhertrial

affidavit.AgainHisHonourwasmostconcernedabouttheapplicant’slackof

candor.HisHonourdidnotapplytheEliasprincipleinrelationtotheCentrelink

documents,butsaidthathetookintoaccounttheinherentcontradictionsinthe

applicant’sbehaviourandrepresentations.

HisHonouracceptedthattherespondentwasfinanciallyandemotionally

controlling.Therewasevidencethattheapplicant“didnotgoasfaras

commitment”totherespondent[para49]:

1. theapplicantretainedherfinancialindependence;

2. sheretainedherownresidence;

3. therewereaspectsofherbeingsociallyindependent;and

4. sheheldherselfouttoGovernmentDepartmentsasbeingfinanciallyand

emotionallyindependent.

HisHonourfoundthattherewasnotadefactorelationship.Theapplicant’s

failuretodiscloseherseparateresidence,herCentrelinkclaimandheraffidavit

havingbeendraftedinawaytoholdherselfoutasfinanciallydependentupon

andlivingwiththerespondent,allweighedheavilyagainsthercredibility.

MillerandTrent[2011]FMCAfam324CoatesFM

Thepartieslivedtogetherfor17months.Mr.Millerassertedthathemade

substantialcontributionstotherelationship,mostlynon‐financialcontributions

byaddingvaluetoMs.Trent’sbusinessandbyimprovingthepropertiesin

whichtheylivedandthathewouldsufferaseriousinjusticeifanorderfor

propertysettlementwerenotmade.


27

HisHonourfoundthatthewordsubstantialhasthesameorsimilarmeaning

undertheFamilyCourtActandtheFamilyLawAct.HefollowedChiefJudge

Holden’sdecisioninVandK[2005]FCWA80,andsaidthattheenquirywas

whetherMr.Miller’scontributionswere

“morethanusualorordinaryorwerecontributionshavingrealworth,

valueorimportanceandthataseriousinjusticemayresult.”[atpara62]

HisHonourheldthata“seriousinjustice”isonethatis“weighty”or“important”

andshowsamarkeddegreeofdifferencefromamereinjustice.[atpara63]His

Honourrequiredacausalconnectionbetweenthesubstantialcontributionsand

anincreaseinthevalueofMs.Trent’sbusiness:he“hadtoshowthatthe

contributionsweredirectlyrelatedtowhatisrequiredins.90SM(4)(a),(b)and(c)

FLA.”[para77]

Theapplicantwasnotabletoshowthebasevalueoftheassets.Thequestionofa

substantialcontributioncannotbeviewedinavacuum;pre‐relationship

ownershipofassetsandentitiesandtheirvaluesmustbetakenintoaccount.

[para87]

Significantly,therespondentbroughtinthemajorityofassetsandtheyremainin

herpossession.

80. “Inmyview,theapplicant’sevidencedoesnotdiscloseasingle

outstandingassetwhichhecontributedorthattherespondentretained

assetswhichdidnotbelongtohertobeginwith,apartfromthehorse

[S].Nordoeshisevidenceindicatethattherespondentmakeuseofany

ofhisassetsasinthetakingorreceivingofasubstantialcontribution,

nordidhisschedulediscloseanyjointownershipofassetsthrough

sharedinvestment.”

Theapplicant’scontributionstocookinganddrivingtherespondent’schildrento

schoolwerenotoutoftheordinary.[para73]

Hewasunabletodemonstratethathehadanyknowledgeorexpertisetoshow

thathiscontributionsaddedsomeformofexceptionoroutoftheordinaryvalue

tothebusinessinterests:[para67]


28

Thecaseconfirmsthat3elementsmustbeestablished:

1. Theapplicantbearstheonusofprovingthats/hemadesubstantial

contributions;

2. Theremustbeacausalconnectionbetweenthosecontributionsandthe

increaseinvalueoftheassets;therebymakingsubstantialcontributions;

and

3. Theremustbearesultingseriousinjusticeiforderswerenotmade.

HisHonourwasnotsatisfiedthattherelationshipmettherequirementsforade

factorelationshipundertheAct.

BettsandSheriff[2012]FMCAfam617BaumannFM

MrBettsassertedthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipfrom1995until

April2010.MsSheriffdeniedtheexistenceofadefactorelationship,statingthat

shewasinterestedinanostringsattachedcasualrelationship.

Thecaseturnedonitsfacts.Itwascommongroundthatthepartieshadasexual

relationshipanddidlivetogetherforatime.HisHonourfoundthatthe

relationshiphaddeterioratedby2007;withtheapplicantnotprovidinganycare

totherespondent’schildren;therewasnofinancialdependencebetweenthe

parties,nominglingoffinancialresourcesofthepartiesatanytimetoany

significantdegree;theapplicantclaimedCentrelinkBenefitsthroughoutthe

period.Theredidn’tappeartobeanyjointpropertyotherthanpossiblysome

itemsoffurniture.HisHonourfoundthatthereputationandpublicaspectsof

therelationshiphadceasedinatleast2007.

HisHonourfoundthattherewasnodefactorelationshipforthepurposeofthe

FamilyLawAct.

BourkeandGolby[2013]FMCAfam228RobertsFM

Thequestionwaswhetherthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipon1March

2009,havingbeenlivingtogetherfrom2004andceasedlivingtogetherinJuly

2007.Theapplicantcontendingthatafterthatdatetheirdefactorelationship


29

continuedandtherespondentstatingthattheirrelationshipcontinuedbutas

boyfriendgirlfriend.

HisHonorfoundthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipupuntilMarch

2011,despitethemnotlivingtogether.HisHonourreliedupon

Thepartieslivedashortdistanceapart,workedinthesamebusinessand

spenttimesocializingwithfamily,friendsandbusinessacquaintances;

Theparties’maintenanceofajointbankaccount;

Therespondentpurchasingexpensivegiftswhichwentbeyondboyfriend

girlfriendandhispurchaseofgiftsforherwhichheportrayedasbeing

fromhischildren;

Thepartiesbeingequalshareholdersintherespondent’sbusinessand

herappointmentasadirectoraftertheyceasedlivingtogetherandshe

didnotceaseinthatroleuntilDecember2010;

Theuseofequityintheapplicant’shometopurchaseassetsforthe

business;

Thefactofthepartiesengagement,whichneedstobeassessedonacase

bycasebasis;

Mutualsupportforeachother’schildren,throughchildrenaccompanying

thepartiesonholidaysandthepaymentofexpensesfortheotherparty’s

child;

GissingandSheffield[2012]FMCAfam1111O’SullivanFM

Theapplicantallegedthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipfrom1995

to2010.Therespondentdeniedthattheywereinadefactorelationship.The

partieslivedtogetheratdifferenttimesduringthisperiod,notallofthetime.

Thepartiespurchasedanumberofpropertiesintherespondent’sname,using

jointfunds.HisHonourultimatelydidnotaccepttherespondent’sevidence,

largelyduetotheevidencethatshegaveandthewayshebehavedinthewitness

box:herstorylackedcredulity,shewasevasive,attimesrefusingtoanswer

questions.

HisHonourfoundthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshiprelyingupon:


30

Themutualinvolvementinthebusinessesandthelengthoftheir

association:purchased3properties,cars,beachboxesandhadruna

businesstogetherin4locations;

Carryingonamutualenterpriseandthesharingofincomefromitandthe

sharedpaymentofexpensesfortheirmutualsupportandtheirhomes;

Interminglingoffinancesandjointbankaccount;

Theinterdependencebetweenthepartiesandthealmostcomplete

reliancebytherespondentontheapplicantforfinancialandotheradvice

andadministration;

Theperceptionofothers;

Thecommonresidence(s)forsignificantperiodsoftime.

WhatamIactuallylookingfor?5

Whatisclearfromthecasesisthattheyturnontheirfacts.Itisimportant

thereforeforsolicitorstotakedetailedinstructionsaboutawidevarietyof

matters.Thiswillassistwhendeterminingwhetherthepartieshavethe

requisitelevelofcoupledomtoallowacourttofindadefactorelationshipand

alsotobeabletoavoidanysurprises.

Inthecurrentoverlyconnectedworld,weshouldnotunderestimatethe

importanceofunguardedcommunicationssuchasemails,cardsandlettersas

evidence.Thisisnotlimitedtodeclarationsofloveandcommitmentbutalsoto

thedegreeofminutiaeofdailyliving;mundanemattersthatwouldinteresta

partnerandnotafriend.Alsoensurethatyouconsidersocialmedia,suchas

Facebookanddatingsites.

Thedurationoftherelationship

Thelongertherelationshipis,isnotdeterminativeornecessarilyof

assistanceinestablishingitasadefactorelationship;

Thelegislationrequiresa2‐yearminimumsubjecttoexceptions.

5ThankstoJimMellasforhisgreatideasforthissection.


31

Thenatureandextentoftheircommonresidence;

Thepartiesdonothavetolivetogetheronafull‐timebasis,nordotheyhave

tolivetogetherfortheentiretyoftheirrelationship.Havingmorelimited

timetogetherdoesnotexcludethepossibilityofadefactorelationship;

Thequalityandnatureofthecommonresidenceisimportantratherthanthe

quantityoftime:JonahandWhite

Howmuchtimedotheyspendtogether;

Aretherereasonswhytheydonotlivetogetheronafull‐timebasis?Isitout

oftheircontrol,suchasforworkreasons?

Whatisthenatureoftheircommonresidence?Isthereonepropertyorare

theymovingbetweeneachother’sprincipalhomes?Dotheyrentthe

commonresidenceseparatelyortogether?

Havetheychangedcommonresidencestogether?Movingtogetheras

propertiesareboughtandsold?

Whataddressdoeseachpartygiveforreceivingcorrespondenceorwhere

required?Doctors?Schools?University?Employment?Centrelinkor

Governmentagencies?

Whetherasexualrelationshipexists;

Itsfrequency;and

Itsexclusivity.

Thedegreeoffinancialdependenceorinterdependence,andall

Dothepartieshavejointbankaccounts?

Howdidthepartiesmeettheirexpenses?Loans,utilities,mortgages,other

householdexpenses,generallivingexpenses?

Didonepartysupporttheotherfinanciallyandifso,towhatextent?

Didonepartyperformunpaidworkorhouseholdduties?


32

Theownership,useandacquisitionoftheirproperty;

Didthepartiesacquirepropertyduringtherelationship?Whoacquiredit?

Howwasitpaidfor?Howisitowned?Howdidtheyuseit?

Howsignificantwastheproperty?

Didthepartiesalloweachothertousetheirrespectiveproperty?

Thedegreeofmutualcommitmenttoasharedlife

Didtheylivetogetherinonehome;

Didtheyspendregulartimetogether?Ifso,howmuch?

Whatconversations/statementsdidtheymaketoeachotherabouttheir

commitment:verbalorinwriting;

Whatrepresentationsdidtheymaketoothersabouttheircommitment?

Family,friends,Governmentagencies?

Didtheyhaveprojectstogether?Renovations?Work?

Weretheyinvolvedtogetherineachother’sfamilylife?Attendingfunctions

together?

Iftheygavegiftstogether,weretheysignificant,howweretheygiven,signed

orengraved?

Whethertherelationshipisorwasregisteredunderaprescribedlawofa

StateorTerritoryasaprescribedkindofrelationship;

Thecareandsupportofchildren

Thisispotentiallyasignificantfactor,sotakedetailedinstructions.

Didtheyassistwiththecareofeachother’schildren?

Ifnot,whynot?


33

Iftheywerenotduringtherelationship,wasthereanintentiontodosoin

thefuture?

Whattimedidtheyspendwitheachother’schildren?

Whatweretheirrespectivelevelsofinvolvement?

Didonepartysupporttheotherparty’schildrenfinancially?

Didonepartyprovidephysicalcaretotheotherparty’schildren?

Thepublicaspectsoftherelationship

Didthepartiessocializetogether;

Weretheyknownasacouple,ifnotwhynot?

Inwhatcirclesweretheyknownasacouple:family,extendedfamily,friends,

andwork?

Didtheyattendimportantfunctionsforeachparty?

DidtheymakeprovisionforeachotherinWills,healthandotherinsurance

andsuperannuation?

Weretheytheemergencycontactsforeachother:Passports,immigration;

Weretheyeachother’snextofkin:medical,hospitalsandPowersof

Attorney;and

Weretheyeachother’semergencycontactfortheotherparty’schild(ren):

school,doctor.

Afterreviewingthecases,itisclearthatthenatureoftheenquiryisbroadand

theoutcomesoftenuncertainduetothechangingnatureofcommitmentand

relationshipsandthediscretionarynatureofthelegislation.TheFullCourt

followingJusticeMurphyinJonahandWhitehasopenedthedoortoincludea

muchbroaderdefinitionofwhatconstitutesadefactorelationship.

Manyofthesecasesareexpensivetorunduetothenumberofwitnesses

requiredtogiveevidenceaboutdifferentaspectsoftherelationship.


34

Considerationneedstobegiventoensurethattheevidenceofthewitnessesis

relevantandthattheyarenotequivocalasinmanyofthecases.Itisalso

particularlyimportantthattheaffidavitsaredraftedcarefullytocomplywiththe

rulesofevidenceandthatmatterssuchasthefailuretocallevidenceare

consideredwellbeforetrial.

Documents

Defacto Relationships The Threshold Issues