defacto relationships the threshold issues
TRANSCRIPT
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
March2009wassomewhatakintoaâMooniesWeddingâ.Manycoupleswentto
bedon28February2009asusualandwokeupon1March2009withtherights
andresponsibilitiesofmarriedcouples;manybeingcompletelyunawareoftheir
changeinstatus.Thisraised,andcontinuestoraise,questionsaboutwhois
actuallyâinâandwhoisâoutâofthedefactoregime.
Thepurposeofthispaperistoreviewthecasesaboutthresholdissuesin2012
and2013andseewhatprinciplescanbedistilledfromthemtohelpusidentify
whenadefactorelationshipcommences.
ItalsoaimstodemystifythepositioninWesternAustralia,asthisStatehasnot
referredpowerstotheCommonwealthandhasseparatelegislation.Western
AustraliaâssimilarStatelegislationcameintooperation7yearspriortothe
Commonwealthlegislation.Itisausefulsourceofjurisprudence.
Legislation
TherelevantlegislationisPartVIIIABFamilyLawAct1975(Cth)(âFLAâ)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)between2personswholivetogetherinamarriageâlikerelationship.
(a)thepersonsarenotlegallymarriedtoeachother;and
s.13A(1)notlegallymarried
(b)thepersonsarenotrelatedbyfamily;and
(c)havingregardtoallthecircumstancesoftheirrelationship,theyhavearelationshipasacouplelivingtogetheronagenuinedomesticbasis.
Paragraph(c)haseffectsubjecttoparagraph5.
2personswholivetogetherinamarriageâlikerelationship:s.13A(1)
Workingoutifpersonshavearelationshipasacouplelivingtogetheronagenuinedomesticbasis
Indicatorsofadefactorelationship
4AA(2)Thosecircumstancesmayincludeanyorallofthefollowing:
13(2)âThefollowingfactorsareindicatorsofwhetherornotadefactorelationshipexistsbetween2persons,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)âThefactorsareindicatorsofwhetherornotadefactorelationshipexistsbetween2persons,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)âTheperiodortotalperiodofthedefactorelationshipmustbeatleast2years;OR
s.205Z(1)(a)âDefactorelationshipofatleast2years;OR
s.90SB(b)âThereisachildofthedefactorelationship;OR
s.205Z(1)(b)âthereisachildofthedefactorelationshipwhoisnot18
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
4
FamilyLawAct1975 InterpretationAct1984(WA)&FamilyCourtAct
yearsandfailuretomakeanorderwouldresultinaseriousinjusticetothepartnercaringorresponsibleforthechild;OR
s.90SB(c)âtheapplicanthasmadesubstantialcontributionsofthekindmentionedinparagraph90SM(4)(a),(b)or(c);andafailuretomakeadeclarationwouldresultinseriousinjusticetotherelationship;OR
s.205Z(1)(c)âDefactopartnerwhoappliesfortheordermadesubstantialcontributionsofthekindmentionedins.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)FLC93â480andFenton&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]â[13]statedthatitisthepartieswhodefinethenatureoftheir
relationship.Itmayevolveandalterdramaticallyovertime.
Selectedcasesfrom2012and2013:
FullCourtoftheFamilyCourtofAustralia
JonahandWhite[2012]FamCAFC200May,Strickland,AinslieâWallaceJJ
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]FamCA40OâReillyJ
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]FMCAfam1111OâSullivanFM
FullCourtoftheFamilyCourtofAustralia
JonahandWhite[2012]FamCAFC200,(2012)FLC93â522May,Strickland,
AinslieâWallaceJJ
Ms.JonahbeganworkinginMr.Whiteâsbusinessin1992andtheybegana
sexualrelationshipthatcontinueduntilearly2009.Mr.Whitewasmarried
throughouttheperiodofthepartiesârelationshipandlivingwithhiswifeand
children.Thepartieskepttheirrelationshipsecret,maintainingseparatehomes
andhouseholds.Ms.Jonahsoughtadeclarationthatthepartieswereinade
factorelationshipfromAugust1996untilJune2009.Mr.Whiteassertedthatthe
relationshipwasanaffairandnotadefactorelationship.Whatwasinteresting
wasthatnotsurprisingly,thepartiesdidnotspendsignificanttimetogether:
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
8
sometimes2â3daysevery2ndor3rdweek,travellingoverseastogetheroncefor
about2½weeksandotheroccasionsofabout2weeks.
HisHonourJusticeMurphy,thetrialjudge,setouttheenquirythattheCourtis
tomakewhendeterminingwhetherornotadefactorelationshipexists:
60.Inmyopinion,thekeytothatdefinition[defactorelationship]isthe
manifestationofarelationshipwhereâthepartieshavesomergedtheir
livesthattheywere,forallpracticalpurposes,âlivingtogetherâasa
coupleonagenuinedomesticbasis.âItisthemanifestationof
âcoupledomâ;whichinvolvedthemergeroftwolivesasjustdescribed,
thatisthecoreofthedefactorelationshipasdefinedandtowhich,each
ofthestatutoryfactors(andothersthatmightapplytoaparticular
relationship)aredirected.â
MurphyJconfirmed,whatcouldbeassumedfromthelegislation,thatexclusivity
isnotanecessaryrequirementofadefactorelationship,asMr.Whitehad
maintainedhismarriage.[para62oftrialjudgment]
Astothequestionoftheextenttowhichpartiesneededtolivetogether,His
Honoursaidrelevantlyatparagraphs65â66ofthejudgment,thefactthatthe
partieslivedinthesameresidenceforâonlyasmallpartofeachweekâdoesnot
excludethepossibilitythattheywerelivingtogetheronagenuinedomestic
basis.Themaintenanceofseparateresidencesisnotnecessarilyinconsistent
withthepartieshavingadefactorelationship.ForHisHonourtheissuewasone
ofthenatureoftheunion,ratherthanhowitmanifestsitselfinquantitiesof
time.Themergeroftwoindividuallivesintoacouplethatisimportant.
HisHonourfoundthattherewasnodefactorelationshipandputsignificant
weightonthelackofreputationasacouple,thelackofsocialinvolvementin
eachotherâslivesandlackofpublicaspectoftheirrelationship.HisHonour
appearedtonotbeconcernedaboutthelimitedtimethatthepartieshadspent
together.
HisHonourpointedtoanumberofindicia,whichheidentifiedaspointingtothe
conclusionthattherewasnodefactorelationship.TheFullCourtreferredto
thesefindingsatpara25oftheirjudgment:
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
9
a. Eachofthepartieskeptandmaintainedahouseholddistinctfromthe
other;
b. Intherespondentâscase,thathouseholdinvolvedthemaintenanceof
familyrelationshipsincludingthesupportofchildren;
c. Therewasnorelationshiporintendedrelationshipbetweenthe
applicantandtherespondentâschildren;
d. Therelationshipwasclandestine,timewasnotspentsocializingasa
couple;
e. Therespondentcontinuedtoemphasisethelimitsoftherelationship
withtheapplicant,andtoldherthatifhehadtomakeachoice,he
wouldchoosehiswife;
f. Despiteregularmonthlypaymentsandapaymentof$24,000there
wasnojointbankaccountandnojointinvestments;
g. Thepartiesrarelymixedwitheachotherâsfriends;
h. Thepartiesdidnotmixwiththerespondentâsbusinessassociates;
i. Therewasvirtuallynoinvolvementbytherespondentinthe
applicantâslife;
j. Therespondentspentverylittletimewiththeapplicantâsfamily;and
k. Therewereveryfewpublicaspectstotheirrelationship.
TheFullCourtemphasizedthatthetouchstoneofthedefactorelationshipisthe
partiesbeingaâcouplelivingtogetheronagenuinedomesticbasis.â[para32]
TheFullCourtagreedthatpartiescouldfulfilltherequirementsofadefacto
relationshipwheretheyhavelivedtogetherforlimitedperiodsprovidedthat
otherindiciaorthecircumstancesofthematterenableafindingthattheywere
livingtogetheronagenuinedomesticbasis.[para40]
Theapplicantarguedthatthepartieswerelivingtogetherâthroughtheir
emotionalcommunionwhichoccurrednotonlyineachotherâsphysicalpresence,
butbytelephoneandotherwise.âTheFullCourtrejectedthisargumentandheld
thattheywereânotpersuadedthatâemotionalcommunionâissufficienttofall
withinthedefinitionofâlivingtogetherâ.[atparas41â42]
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
10
TheFullCourtheldthatHisHonourâsconclusionthattheproperfocusofthe
enquiryisonthenatureandqualityoftheassertedrelationshipratherthana
quantificationoftimespenttogetherwasentirelycorrect.[para44]
TheFullCourtheldthatHisHonourâsfindingsaboutthelackofpublicaspectsof
therelationshipwasalsoopentoHisHonourontheevidence.Theappealwas
dismissed.
Thisisthemostsignificantdecisionof2012.Itsimportanceistoclearlydefine
thenatureoftheenquirytobeundertakenbytheCourt,thatistoexaminethe
natureandqualityoftherelationshipratherthanaquantificationoftimespent.
TheFullCourtâsconfirmationthatarelationshipinwhichthepartieslive
togetherforlimitedperiodsdoesnotdisqualifythemfromafindingofbeingina
defactorelationshipisveryimportant;particularlyinthefactualcontextofthis
casewherethepartiesdidnotspendagreatdealoftimetogether.
Thiscasehasopenedupthedefinitionofdefactorelationships.
FamilyCourtofAustralia
EsdaleandSchenk[2012]FamCA111MurphyJ[interimcosts]
Thiswasaninterimhearingsomeweekspriortoafinalhearingtodeterminethe
questionofjurisdiction.Theapplicantassertedthatthepartieswereinadefacto
relationshipfrom2006.Therespondentdeniesanysuchrelationships,asserting
thattheapplicantwashisfullâtimecarerforwhichshewaspaidawage.
Theapplicantsoughtanorderfor$65,000eitherasinterimcosts(s.117)or
partialpropertysettlement(s.90SM).
HisHonourheldthatthejurisdictionoftheCourtâcarrieswithitthepowerto
determinetheexistenceorotherwiseoffactsuponwhichitsjurisdiction
depends.â[para11]
However,HisHonourquotedJusticesWilsonandDawsoninRvRossâJones&
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,ââŚthecircumstancespointcompellinglytoaneedtopreservethestatusquoasaninterimmeasurependingahearingtodeterminewhetherinterlocutoryreliefshouldbegranted.â(RossâJonesat213perWilsonandDawsonJJ).
18.Inmyview,theCourtâsjurisdictionandpowertomakeinterlocutoryordersinthecircumstancesunderconsiderationisconfinedtopowersancillarytothejurisdictionandpowertomakeordersdeterminingwhethertheCourthasjurisdiction.ThisCourtdoesnothavejurisdictionorpowertomakeinterlocutoryorderswithrespecttosections90SMor90SS,pendingadeterminationofwhetherthereisadefactofinancialcause.
HisHonourheldthattheCourthadjurisdictiontomakeanorderforinterim
costsunders.117atparagraph22:
WheretheCourthasinherentjurisdiction,suchasthejurisdictionto
decidethefactsuonwhichtheexistenceofjurisdictionarebased,the
Courthasallofthepowersnecessaryorancillarytothedeterminationof
thatissue.
HisHonourfoundthatâproceedingsunder[the]Actâins.117includes
proceedingsbroughttodetermineifthereisjurisdictioninrespectofthe
proceedings.[para23]
HisHonourultimatelydeclinedtomakeacostsorder.HisHonoursaidthatthe
exerciseofthecostspowerdoesnotjustmeanconsideringthemattersin
s.117(2A);theCourtshouldhaveâproperregardâtos.117(1)whichprescribes
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
12
thateachpartyshouldbeartheirowncosts.Heheldthateveninproceedings
wherethereisnoissueofjurisdictionandtheapplicantreceivinganawarditis
notcertainthatthecostspowerwillbeexercisedasâSection117(1)remains..an
obstaclethatmustbeovercome.âThisisevenmorethecasewhenjurisdictionis
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.MitchellâsevidencethatMs.WallstayedwithMr.
Mitchelltwonightsperweekandheoccasionallywithher.Theydidnot
establishasharedresidence.WhileMr.Mitchellpaidformostthingswhenthey
wentout,therewasnoevidenceofanysharedfinancialrelationshipbetween
them.Theyhadnomutualproperty.HisHonourfoundthattherewasâsome
levelofcommitmenttoasharedlifeâbutalsobehaviourthatwasinconsistent
withthis;suchasgoingoutwithotherpeople.OnceHisHonourfoundthatthere
wasnodefactorelationshipduringthefirstperiod,therecouldnothavebeena
2âyearrelationship.Thecaseisnotparticularlyhelpfulasitturnedonthe
particularfactsandMs.Wallâscasewasnotstrong.
Thecaseismoreusefulforaddingtoalineofauthorityaboutâsubstantial
contributionsâ.HisHonourfollowedthedecisionsofCoatesFMinMillerand
Trent[2011]FMCAfam324whichhadfollowedthedecisionofHoldenCJinV
andK[2005]FCWA80whereatpara21ChiefJudgeHoldenheld:
âNotwithstandingIamoftheviewthatacontributiontodomesticdutiesin
circumstancessuchasexistinthiscasewheretherewerenodependent
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
13
childrenoverashortperiodoftimeoughtnottobeseentobesubstantial.In
myview,substantialmeanssomethingmorethanusualorordinary.Inmy
view,[thesection]isaimedatmoreexceptionalcircumstanceswhereserious
injusticemaybecausedbytheapplication[oftherelevantprovision].â
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
relationshipformuchofthepartiesârelationship.MsAllenbyâsrepresentations
toCentrelinkdidnotdeterminethematterforHisHonour;hefounditlikelythat
herstatementswerecompletelyfalseandthatshemadethemwithaviewto
obtainingabenefittowhichshewasnotentitled.
EvidenceuponwhichHisHonourplacedimportanceinfindingadefacto
relationshipwas:
1. Hefoundthattherelationshipmovedfromaphaseinwhichtheparties
maintainedtheirseparateness,tocohabitation;
2. Thefactthattheysharedthemasterbedroom;
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
14
3. EmailspassingbetweenMr.KimbleâsdaughterandMs.AllenbywhileMr.
Kimbleandhisdaughterwereoverseas,keepingMs.Allenbyuptodatewith
theiractivitiesandlinkingtophotos.Thisshowedaninterminglingof
families.[paras81â82]
4. Mr.KimblerenovatinghishometoallowMs.Allenbytoworktherewithout
herprovidinghimwithanycompensation;[para91]
5. Theinvolvementofeachotherwiththeirrespectivechildrenandfamilies
includingvisitingtheotherpartyâsfamilymembers;
6. Thedrawingofacohabitationagreementanditbeingpursued18months
afterbeingraisedandaftercohabitationcommenced;
7. Emailspassingbetweenthepartiesaboutdomesticandfamilyissues;
âfocusingupontheminutiaeredolentofdomesticlife.â[para82]and
8. ThefindingthatthereasonforMr.Kimblefailingtocallhissolicitors
solicitorswasthattheirevidencewouldnothaveassistedhiscase.
Thelastfindingactsasanimportantremindertherulesofevidenceinthisand
othercases.Inthedraftdefactoagreement,whichwasdrawnbyMr.Kimbleâs
solicitors,hestatedthatthedefactorelationshipstartedin2004.Hesaidin
evidencethathewasunderamisapprehensionwhengivinginstructionstohis
solicitorsashethoughtthatthedatethepartiesbegansharingacommon
residencewhilehavingasexualrelationshipwasconsideredtobethe
commencementofadefactorelationship.Mr.Kimbledidnotcallhissolicitorat
thetimetogiveevidenceintheproceedingsandcorroboratehisexplanation.
NotsurprisinglyMr.Kimblewasfoundtohavewaivedprivilegeonthisissue.
Mr.KimbleâscounselarguedthatitwasuptoMs.AllenbyâscounseltocallMr.
KimbleâsformersolicitorifshewantedtochallengeMr.Kimbleâsevidenceon
thisissue.HisHonourfoundthatthiswasnotcorrectandtheevidentiaryburden
laywithMr.Kimble.HisHonourfoundthatitwassignificantthatMrKimble
failedtocallthisevidenceandexplaintheabsenceoftheevidence[paras69â71].
HisHonourmadeafindingunderJonesandDunkel(1959)101CLR298,thatthe
reasonwhyMrKimblehadnotcalledtheevidencefromhisprevioussolicitoris
becausetheevidencewouldnothaveassistedMr.Kimbleâscase.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
15
MalcherandSeares[2012]FamCA643StevensonJ
Theissuefordeterminationinthismatterwasthelengthofthepartiesâdefacto
relationship.Theapplicantasserteditwas4½yearsfromJune2007until
November2011.Therespondentsaidthattherelationshipwasaâsocial/sexualâ
relationshiponlyandthatthepartieshadonlylivedtogetherfor11months.It
wascommongroundthatthepartiesdidnotlivetogetheronafullâtimebasis.
Thepartiesspenttimewiththeapplicantâschildrenandtherespondentallowed
theapplicant,togetherwithhischildren,touseapropertyandskilodgefor
regularweekendsandholidaysoveraboutafourâyearperiod.Sheaccompanied
theapplicantandhischildrenonabout7occasions.
HerHonourhaddifficultywiththeconceptthataâsocial/sexualârelationship
âincludesmutualcareofandenjoymentofactivitieswithonepartyâschildrenover
thatperiodoftime.â(abouta4yearperiod)[para45]
HerHonourfoundthattherewasadefactorelationshipfromJune2007until
November2011.Shealsoreliedupontherespondentmakingprovisionforthe
applicantinherWillandrelieduponthesocialaspectsofthepartiesâ
relationship.
Kazama&Britton[2013]FamCA4WattsJ
Theapplicantassertedthatsheandtherespondentwereinadefacto
relationshipfromNovember2002toSeptember2009.Therespondentasserted
thatthedefactorelationshipwasonlybetween2006and2009.Thepartieshad
neverestablishedacommonresidence;theapplicantâscasewasthattheparties
spentsignificanttimetogetherattherespondentâshomeinnorthQLD.The
partiesalsospentsignificanttimetogetheronholidays.HisHonourfollowedthe
reasoningofMurphyJinJonah&Whiteinholdingthatthisdidnotprecludea
findingofadefactorelationship.
TherespondentsponsoredtheapplicanttomovetoAustraliaonaspousevisa.
TherespondentmaderepresentationstotheDepartmentofImmigrationthat
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
16
thepartiescommencedadefactorelationshipin2002.Attrialtherespondent
saidthathetoldtheDepartmentthisinformationtosecuretheapplicantâs
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,theapplicantâsdaughterâsuniversityfees,herrentandacar.The
partieswerealsopubliclyopenabouttheirrelationshipandhereferredtothe
mattersaboveregardingtherespondentâsrepresentations.
VolenandBackstrom[2013]FamCA40OâReillyJ
Ms.Volenassertedthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipfrom2005to
2010.Ms.Backstromdeniedthis;howeversheacknowledgedadefacto
relationshipfromEaster2006toNovember2007.Theimportantissuewas
whethertherewasadefactorelationshipinexistenceatthetimeofthe
commencementofthelegislation:1March2009.Afeatureoftherelationship
wasthattherespondentwasinvolvedinonâlineâintimateconversationsand
liaisonsâwithotherwomenduringthelatterpartoftheassertedrelationship
andwiththeapplicantâsknowledge.Theapplicantacknowledgedsleepingina
separatebedroomorleavingthepropertyfordaysatatimeatdifferenttimesto
givetherespondentspace.Therespondentassertedthatshetriedtoremovethe
applicantforabout2½yearswiththeapplicantrefusingtoacceptthatthe
respondentdidnâtwantarelationship.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
17
HerHonourhadtoconsiderwhentherelationshipterminated.Asignificant
issueforherHonourwaswhetherthereisatlawanecessityforonepartyto
communicatetotheotheranintentiontoendadefactorelationship.
HerHonourhadregardtoadecisionofStevensonJinClisbeyandViges[2011]
FamCA611.StevensonJreferredtoalineofauthorityfromPavey(1976)FLC
90â051,Todd&Todd(No.2)(1976)FLC90â008whichwasappliedbyMcGuire
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
OâReillyJfoundthatitwasnotappropriatetoapplydecisionswhichrelatetothe
endofamarriagetodefactorelationships.[para31]
HerHonourfollowedthedecisionofCroninJinVaughan&Bele[2011]FamCA
436at[11]â[13]inwhichCroninJsaid:
[13] ââŚthereisadistinctionbetweenactionswhichconnoteunhappiness
inarelationshipandtheterminationofit.Terminationhasadistinctfinality
aboutitbutitmustbesuchthatbothpartiesacknowledgebutnot
2AsHisHonourthenwas.3HibbersonandGeorgewasfollowedbytheQueenslandCourtofAppealinS&B[2004]QCA449(26November2004)
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
18
necessarilyaccept,thatatleastoneofthemhasdecidedtopermanentlyend
therelationship.â
HerHonourfoundthatthepartieshadcommencedadefactorelationship
betweenDecember2005andEaster2006onthebasisthat:
1. Theyhadacommonresidence;theapplicanthadmovedherclothesanda
largenumberofherpersonalandfarmpossessionsintothefarm;they
preparedandatemealstogether;theysharedthefarmandotherchores;
theyhadcommencedtomakeâmutualdecisionsâaboutfarmmatters;
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,andshorttimesspentawaytogivetherespondentâspaceâ.
Bothshareddomesticandfarmchores.
2. Asexualrelationshipduringthatperiod;
3. Financialinterdependence;
4. Theuseofthefarmandanotherpropertyfortheirmutualpurposes;
5. Amutualcommitmenttoasharedlife:
a. Despitetherespondenttellingtheapplicanttoleave;whichwason
occasionsandnotacontinuouspattern;
b. Therespondentnottakingstepstoevicttheapplicantwasnotasa
resultoftheapplicantâsbullyingorintimidationbutasaresultofthe
respondentâscommitmenttotherelationshipanddependenceuponit,
particularlyinlightofherphysicalandhealthdifficulties;
c. Emailspassingfromtherespondenttotheapplicantexpressing
genuineemotionandintent;and
6. Thepublicaspectsoftheirrelationshipwerelimitedtolocallifeandstock
sales.
TingandFingal[2013]FamCA29CroninJ[Interimorders]
Ms.Tingallegedan8âyeardefactorelationship.Mr.Fingaldeniedtheexistence
ofadefactorelationship,statingthattheylivedinthesamehousebutwere
neverintimate.Ms.TinglookedafterMr.Fingalâshouseandhisanimalswhilehe
travelledtoIndonesiatobewithhiswifeandchildren.Ms.Tingsoughtinterim
andfinalordersforpropertysettlementandspousalmaintenance.
ThequestionforHisHonourwaswhetherhecouldmakeinterimordersfor
spousalmaintenancewhentheexistenceofthedefactorelationshiphadnot
beendetermined.
HisHonourheldthattheCourthasjurisdictiontodeterminewhetherornot
therearesufficientfactsuponwhichjurisdictiondepends,(para11followingthe
decisionofReRossâJones;exparteGreen(1984)156CLR185.Wilsonand
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
20
DawsonheldthatthispowerdidnotextendthejurisdictionoftheCourt:âIfa
matterisbeyondthejurisdictionofacourt,itcannotbebroughtwithinjurisdiction
forthepurposesofgrantinginterlocutoryrelief.âAtparagraph13,HisHonour
saidthattheremustbeaprimafaciecasethatjurisdictionexistsandinorderfor
thecourttoexercisejurisdictionforinterlocutoryrelief,therehadtobe
compellingcircumstancesshowinganeedtopreservethestatusquo.
TheCourtdoesnothavethepowertomakeordersinPartVIIIABonaninterim
basisunlessthecourtissatisfiedthatthereisadefactorelationship.Therefore
thereisnopowertomakeordersforinterimmaintenanceorinterimproperty
settlement.
HisHonourexpressedconcernaboutsuchordersbeingabletobereverseddue
totheapplicantbeingimpecunious.
HisHonouralsoheldthatinsuchcircumstancesinjunctionsshouldonlybemade
âwherethereisaseriousprospectthattherespondentwouldtakeactiontothwart
theapplicanthavingthebenefitofanyjudgment.â(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
meetingallofthepartiesâjointhouseholdexpensesincludingmostofthegrocery
expensesandfoodsupplies,allofficeexpensesrelatingtotherespondentâs
businessandpaidformuchoftheirentertainment.Shealsodeposedto
undertakingsomeworkintherespondentâsbusiness,maintainingthehousehold
bydoingthevastmajorityofcooking,mostofthecleaning,feedingandgrooming
thedogs,maintainingthegardenandresearchingandsourcingitemstoimprove
theproperty.
HerHonourfoundthatevenifsheacceptedtheapplicantâsevidenceatits
highest,hercontributionswerenotâsubstantial.âHercontributionstothe
householdandthepartiesâlifestylewerenotanythingexceptionalandhadtobe
viewedinthecontextofcontributionsmadebytherespondent.
Theapplicantarguedthathersubstantialcontributionswerethesaleofher
propertyandherforgoneopportunityoffullâtimeemployment.Sheassertedthat
therespondentforcedhertosellherhomeandthathewasadamantthatshenot
obtainfullâtimework.
HerHonourheldthattocontributeistoâplayapartintheachievementofa
result.âMeaningthateveniftheapplicanthadsoldherhomeorgivenup
employment,itiswhatfollowsfromtheactthatcounts,nottheactitself.Inthis
caseitwouldbethecontributionofthesaleproceedstoapropertypurchaseor
hersubsequentlyworkingintherespondentâsbusinessthatwouldbea
contribution.Forgoingemploymentopportunitiesandsellingahousearenot
contributionsofthekindreferredtoins.90SM(4)(a),(b)or(c).
HerHonourfoundthattheapplicanthadnotestablishedhercase.
Asprey&Delamarre[2013]FamCA214ClearyJ
Thepartieswereindisputeaboutanalleged9yeardefactorelationshipthatthe
applicantsaidwasfromMay2002toJanuary2011.Theyhadtwochildrenaged
5and2years.Thepartiesdidnotlivetogetherinthesamehouseforanyperiod
longerthan7weeksandthiswasonlyafterthebirthofeachchild.Theapplicant
spentmostweekendstogetherandotherspecialtimes.Theyhadaâpassionateâ
disagreementabouthowtolivetogether,whichHerHonourconsidered
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
22
significant.HerHonourfoundthattheywantedtospendalltheirtimetogether
asafamily,eachontheirownterms.Theydisagreedaboutwheretolive:Sydney
ortheCentralCoastandwhethertheapplicantcouldcontinuetoworkfrom
homeiftheylivedintherespondentâshome.Thisongoingargumentabouthow
theywouldlivetogetherasafamilyreflectedamutualcommitmenttoashared
life.
HerHonourfoundthattherewasnofinancialdependencyandtheymaintained
separatebankaccounts.HerHonourconsideredthatthiswasnotuncommonin
modernrelationships.Theyeachpurchasedapropertyintheirownnameand
didnotpurchasepropertytogether.
Therespondentfailedtocallhisfamilytogiveevidence.HerHonouraccepted
thathewasclosetohisfamilyandinferredthattheyhadnotbeencalledastheir
evidencewouldnothaveassistedhiscase.HerHonournotesthattheparties
gaveanengravedclocktotherespondentâsparentsontheir50thwedding
anniversary.HerHonourfoundthattherespondentwouldnothaveincludeda
casualgirlfriendontheengravinginthatway.Againtherespondenttookthe
applicanttoafamilyfunctionaftertheirseparationashehadnâttoldhisfamily
thattheyhadseparatedanddidnâtwanttoworrythem.HerHonourconsidered
thatthisevidencedtheâpositiveplacementtheapplicanthadintherespondentâs
family.â
Shefoundthattherewasacloseaffectionatebondbetweentheapplicantandat
leasttwooftherespondentâschildrenfromhismarriage.
HerHonourfoundthattherewasadefactorelationship.Sheplacedthegreatest
significanceonthefactthatthepartieshavetwochildrentogethertowhomthey
havebeencommittedparents.4
4Interestingtonotethatatellingpieceofevidencewasthatin2006therespondentcompleted
anapplicationtochangehishealthinsurancetoincludetheapplicant.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
23
FamilyCourtofWesternAustralia
ShelleyandMarkhov[2012]FWCA68CrisfordJ
Ms.Shelleyassertedthatthepartieshadbeenina14âyeardefactorelationship.
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.ShelleywasnotinvolvedinthecareandsupportofDrMarkovâs
children.Sheneverattendedanyworkfunction,norwassheinvitedanddidnot
meethisbossof10years.Itappearsthattheypotentiallybehavedquite
differentlywhenineachotherâssocialcircles.WheninDrMarkhovâscircle,
peopledidnotknowthattheywereinarelationship.YetMs.Shelleyâsfriends
believedthemtobeacouple.Theygenerallyholidayedseparatelyeachtravelling
totheircountryoforiginbutdidhavesomeholidaystogether.
WhatisalsoofinterestistheevidencethatHerHonourfoundequivocal:
1. Womenâstoiletriesinthesecondbathroom(nottheoneusedbyDr
Markhov);
2. Womenâsclothesinthesecond(notmainbedroom);and
3. Photographsofthepartiestogetherorwithotherpeople.Inthemainthey
werehappysnapstakenonsocialoccasionsorholidaysandwerestaged.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
24
HerHonourfoundtheevidenceofeachpartytroubling[para12].However,the
mattersthatHerHonouridentifiedasimportantindeterminingthattherewas
notamarriageâlikerelationshipwere:
1. Aâstrikingfeatureâoftherelationshipbeingthatoveranextendedperiod
oftimeDrMarkhovwasactivelyseekinganotherpartnerandthiswasnot
covert;(contrastwithVolen&Backstrom)
2. Ms.Shelleyâsacceptanceofthisbehavior;
3. Neithertreatedtheotherofprimeimportance:
a) Theycameandwent;
b) Holidaysastheypleased;
c) Didnotinterminglefinances;
d) Maintainedstrongculturallinkswhichexcludedtheother;and
e) Playedlittlepartinthefamilylifeofeachother.
f) Theysimplylivedtogether.
Theywerefoundnottobeinadefactorelationship;butratherwereâfriends
withbenefitsâ,withDrMarkhoveffectivelybidinghistime.[para222].
FederalCircuitCourt
HouliandLaidler[2012]FMCAfam636
MsHouliarguedthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipfromlate2001to
27July2009.MrLaidlerdeniedtheexistenceofadefactorelationship,saying
thatitdidnâtreachthatstage.
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
spentabouthalfoftheweekatMsHouliâshomewhereherchildrenlivedand
wasâengagedinallhouseholdactivitiesasonewouldexpectfromthechildrenâs
motherâspartner.â
Thepartiespresentedasacouple.
HerHonourfoundthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationship,despiteMr
Laidlerâsacceptedviewoftheirrelationship.
DandridgeandBarren(2012)FMCAfam141McGuireFM
Theapplicantassertedthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipandthe
respondentassertedthattherelationshipdidnotgetbeyondâboyfriendand
girlfriend.âThepartieshadasexualrelationshipover10yearsandtwochildren.
Itwascommongroundthattherespondentprovidedregularandsignificant
degreeoffinancialsupportoverthe10yearsandthepartiespresented
themselvespubliclyasacoupleandafamilyunit.
Theapplicantstatedthatthepartieslivedtogetherforperiods,ateitherpartyâs
home.
Therespondentassertedthattheymaintainedseparatepremisesthroughoutthe
relationship.TheapplicantwasinreceiptofCentrelinkbenefitsandchild
supportandmaintainedthatshewasnotinadefactorelationshiporwas
supportedbytherespondent.Sheheldoutthroughsocialmediathatshewas
singleandopentoothersexualrelationships.Therewasnomutualfinancial
commitmentsuchasjointbankaccountsorcommonlyownedproperty.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
26
Therespondentboughtandsoldanumberofresidencesduringtherelationship,
eachbeinginhisownname.Therewasnosuggestionthattheapplicantmade
anydirectfinancialcontributiontothepurchaseofanyrealestate.
Theapplicantadmittedincrossâexaminationtomaintainingaseparaterented
residencefor6years.Thisimportantfactwasnotmentionedintheaffidavit.His
Honourwasverytroubledbytheapplicantâsfailuretodisclosethisandfound
theapplicantâsevidencemisleading.Therespondentgaveevidenceaboutthe
applicantbeinginreceiptofCentrelinkbenefitsthroughouttherelationshipand
receivingchildsupport;againtheapplicantdidnotmentionthisinhertrial
affidavit.AgainHisHonourwasmostconcernedabouttheapplicantâslackof
candor.HisHonourdidnotapplytheEliasprincipleinrelationtotheCentrelink
documents,butsaidthathetookintoaccounttheinherentcontradictionsinthe
applicantâsbehaviourandrepresentations.
HisHonouracceptedthattherespondentwasfinanciallyandemotionally
controlling.Therewasevidencethattheapplicantâdidnotgoasfaras
commitmentâtotherespondent[para49]:
1. theapplicantretainedherfinancialindependence;
2. sheretainedherownresidence;
3. therewereaspectsofherbeingsociallyindependent;and
4. sheheldherselfouttoGovernmentDepartmentsasbeingfinanciallyand
emotionallyindependent.
HisHonourfoundthattherewasnotadefactorelationship.Theapplicantâs
failuretodiscloseherseparateresidence,herCentrelinkclaimandheraffidavit
havingbeendraftedinawaytoholdherselfoutasfinanciallydependentupon
andlivingwiththerespondent,allweighedheavilyagainsthercredibility.
MillerandTrent[2011]FMCAfam324CoatesFM
Thepartieslivedtogetherfor17months.Mr.Millerassertedthathemade
substantialcontributionstotherelationship,mostlynonâfinancialcontributions
byaddingvaluetoMs.Trentâsbusinessandbyimprovingthepropertiesin
whichtheylivedandthathewouldsufferaseriousinjusticeifanorderfor
propertysettlementwerenotmade.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
27
HisHonourfoundthatthewordsubstantialhasthesameorsimilarmeaning
undertheFamilyCourtActandtheFamilyLawAct.HefollowedChiefJudge
HoldenâsdecisioninVandK[2005]FCWA80,andsaidthattheenquirywas
whetherMr.Millerâscontributionswere
âmorethanusualorordinaryorwerecontributionshavingrealworth,
valueorimportanceandthataseriousinjusticemayresult.â[atpara62]
HisHonourheldthataâseriousinjusticeâisonethatisâweightyâorâimportantâ
andshowsamarkeddegreeofdifferencefromamereinjustice.[atpara63]His
Honourrequiredacausalconnectionbetweenthesubstantialcontributionsand
anincreaseinthevalueofMs.Trentâsbusiness:heâhadtoshowthatthe
contributionsweredirectlyrelatedtowhatisrequiredins.90SM(4)(a),(b)and(c)
FLA.â[para77]
Theapplicantwasnotabletoshowthebasevalueoftheassets.Thequestionofa
substantialcontributioncannotbeviewedinavacuum;preârelationship
ownershipofassetsandentitiesandtheirvaluesmustbetakenintoaccount.
[para87]
Significantly,therespondentbroughtinthemajorityofassetsandtheyremainin
herpossession.
80. âInmyview,theapplicantâsevidencedoesnotdiscloseasingle
outstandingassetwhichhecontributedorthattherespondentretained
assetswhichdidnotbelongtohertobeginwith,apartfromthehorse
[S].Nordoeshisevidenceindicatethattherespondentmakeuseofany
ofhisassetsasinthetakingorreceivingofasubstantialcontribution,
nordidhisschedulediscloseanyjointownershipofassetsthrough
sharedinvestment.â
Theapplicantâscontributionstocookinganddrivingtherespondentâschildrento
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
totherespondentâschildren;therewasnofinancialdependencebetweenthe
parties,nominglingoffinancialresourcesofthepartiesatanytimetoany
significantdegree;theapplicantclaimedCentrelinkBenefitsthroughoutthe
period.Theredidnâtappeartobeanyjointpropertyotherthanpossiblysome
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;
Thepartiesâmaintenanceofajointbankaccount;
Therespondentpurchasingexpensivegiftswhichwentbeyondboyfriend
girlfriendandhispurchaseofgiftsforherwhichheportrayedasbeing
fromhischildren;
Thepartiesbeingequalshareholdersintherespondentâsbusinessand
herappointmentasadirectoraftertheyceasedlivingtogetherandshe
didnotceaseinthatroleuntilDecember2010;
Theuseofequityintheapplicantâshometopurchaseassetsforthe
business;
Thefactofthepartiesengagement,whichneedstobeassessedonacase
bycasebasis;
Mutualsupportforeachotherâschildren,throughchildrenaccompanying
thepartiesonholidaysandthepaymentofexpensesfortheotherpartyâs
child;
GissingandSheffield[2012]FMCAfam1111OâSullivanFM
Theapplicantallegedthatthepartieswereinadefactorelationshipfrom1995
to2010.Therespondentdeniedthattheywereinadefactorelationship.The
partieslivedtogetheratdifferenttimesduringthisperiod,notallofthetime.
Thepartiespurchasedanumberofpropertiesintherespondentâsname,using
jointfunds.HisHonourultimatelydidnotaccepttherespondentâsevidence,
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;
Thelegislationrequiresa2âyearminimumsubjecttoexceptions.
5ThankstoJimMellasforhisgreatideasforthissection.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
31
Thenatureandextentoftheircommonresidence;
Thepartiesdonothavetolivetogetheronafullâtimebasis,nordotheyhave
tolivetogetherfortheentiretyoftheirrelationship.Havingmorelimited
timetogetherdoesnotexcludethepossibilityofadefactorelationship;
Thequalityandnatureofthecommonresidenceisimportantratherthanthe
quantityoftime:JonahandWhite
Howmuchtimedotheyspendtogether;
Aretherereasonswhytheydonotlivetogetheronafullâtimebasis?Isitout
oftheircontrol,suchasforworkreasons?
Whatisthenatureoftheircommonresidence?Isthereonepropertyorare
theymovingbetweeneachotherâsprincipalhomes?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?
Weretheyinvolvedtogetherineachotherâsfamilylife?Attendingfunctions
together?
Iftheygavegiftstogether,weretheysignificant,howweretheygiven,signed
orengraved?
Whethertherelationshipisorwasregisteredunderaprescribedlawofa
StateorTerritoryasaprescribedkindofrelationship;
Thecareandsupportofchildren
Thisispotentiallyasignificantfactor,sotakedetailedinstructions.
Didtheyassistwiththecareofeachotherâschildren?
Ifnot,whynot?
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
33
Iftheywerenotduringtherelationship,wasthereanintentiontodosoin
thefuture?
Whattimedidtheyspendwitheachotherâschildren?
Whatweretheirrespectivelevelsofinvolvement?
Didonepartysupporttheotherpartyâschildrenfinancially?
Didonepartyprovidephysicalcaretotheotherpartyâschildren?
Thepublicaspectsoftherelationship
Didthepartiessocializetogether;
Weretheyknownasacouple,ifnotwhynot?
Inwhatcirclesweretheyknownasacouple:family,extendedfamily,friends,
andwork?
Didtheyattendimportantfunctionsforeachparty?
DidtheymakeprovisionforeachotherinWills,healthandotherinsurance
andsuperannuation?
Weretheytheemergencycontactsforeachother:Passports,immigration;
Weretheyeachotherâsnextofkin:medical,hospitalsandPowersof
Attorney;and
Weretheyeachotherâsemergencycontactfortheotherpartyâschild(ren):
school,doctor.
Afterreviewingthecases,itisclearthatthenatureoftheenquiryisbroadand
theoutcomesoftenuncertainduetothechangingnatureofcommitmentand
relationshipsandthediscretionarynatureofthelegislation.TheFullCourt
followingJusticeMurphyinJonahandWhitehasopenedthedoortoincludea
muchbroaderdefinitionofwhatconstitutesadefactorelationship.
Manyofthesecasesareexpensivetorunduetothenumberofwitnesses
requiredtogiveevidenceaboutdifferentaspectsoftherelationship.
Defactorelationships:Thresholdissues
34
Considerationneedstobegiventoensurethattheevidenceofthewitnessesis
relevantandthattheyarenotequivocalasinmanyofthecases.Itisalso
particularlyimportantthattheaffidavitsaredraftedcarefullytocomplywiththe
rulesofevidenceandthatmatterssuchasthefailuretocallevidenceare
consideredwellbeforetrial.