De Facto Relationships and Separate Houses

Courts are often called on to declare whether parties are in a de facto relationship for purposes of   determining entitlement to property settlement under the Family Law Act.

In deciding whether to make such a declaration, the court has to consider a range of criteria set out in the Family Law Act including, the duration of the relationship;the nature and extent of their common residence;whether a sexual relationship exists; the degree of financial dependence or interdependence,and any arrangements for financial support between them; the ownership, use and acquisition of their property; the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;the care and support of children and the reputation and public aspects of their relationship.

The court has said that the definition of de facto relationship is a very broad one.

An interesting decision on the issue was a recent one of Kazama & Britton handed down on 15 January 2013, where Watts J held that the parties were in a de facto relationship, despite the fact that they maintained separate residences throughout their relationship.His Honour held that although they maintained separate residences, they spent significant time together, mainly at the male's residence and that he visited the female's home from time to time.

The fact that the parties maintained separate residences did not preclude the court finding that they were "living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis".

The case is also of interest because the male party had made representations to the Department of Immigration that the parties were in a de facto relationship and in the circumstances, the court declined to accept evidence from him that contradicted those representations.