Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
2
FamilyLawAct1975 InterpretationAct1984(WA)&FamilyCourtAct
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
3
FamilyLawAct1975 InterpretationAct1984(WA)&FamilyCourtAct
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
4
FamilyLawAct1975 InterpretationAct1984(WA)&FamilyCourtAct
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
5
FamilyLawAct1975 InterpretationAct1984(WA)&FamilyCourtAct
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.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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:
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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:
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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]
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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;
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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)
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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:
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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]
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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:
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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?
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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?
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
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.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
34
Considerationneedstobegiventoensurethattheevidenceofthewitnessesis
relevantandthattheyarenotequivocalasinmanyofthecases.Itisalso
particularlyimportantthattheaffidavitsaredraftedcarefullytocomplywiththe
rulesofevidenceandthatmatterssuchasthefailuretocallevidenceare
consideredwellbeforetrial.