Case: NSW Supreme Court: when is there a de facto relationship?

Case: NSW Supreme Court: when is there a de facto relationship?

In Hayes v Marquis, a decision of the NSW Court of Appeal, the majority of the court held that the parties were in a close personal relationship including for a period of 3 years when Mr Hayes slept over at Ms Marquis’ home 3 nights a week.

The majority held:

-The question whether one of the statutory relationships which attracts jurisdiction under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 NSW exists, is fact dependent and requires a practical approach. The concept of “living together” in s 5(1)(b) of the Act does not require the parties to live together fulltime.

-The question of whether a couple is “living together” turns on an evaluation of the nature and extent to which they share a household and is ultimately a value judgment, which has regard to the three indicia under s 5(1)(b) to determine whether there is a relationship which fulfils the definition as a whole.

-The requirement in s 5(1)(b) that one or each of the parties provides the other with “personal care” may be satisfied through the provision of either physical or emotional support.

-Statements to a government authority apparently inconsistent with a party’s case are taken into account as a part of all the circumstances, and are not determinative of whether a relationship exists for the purposes of the Act.

-Parties to proceedings under the Act are obliged to make full and frank disclosure of all relevant financial circumstances [or as been commented elsewhere- a case of “show and tell” not “hide and seek”].

-It is open to the Court to give full weight to the parties’ pre-relationship contributions, in considering the terms of any s 20 order, if they fall within s 20(1)(a) and (b).

The case is also testimony to the sometimes pyhric nature of appeals. The appeal was successful, resulting in the amount having to be paid decreasing from $140,000 to $120,000- the difference being less than each of the parties probably incurred on the appeal.

Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

WA surrogacy parents: register now for parentage orders

Western Australians who have had a child through surrogacy, whether in Western Australia, elsewhere in Australia or overseas, may soon have an important opportunity to obtain legal recognition as parents. The Western Australian Government is seeking registrations from past surrogacy parents who do not have a parentage order. This is particularly significant for families who… Read More »WA surrogacy parents: register now for parentage orders

Parenting plans vs consent orders explained

When parents separate, one of the most important questions is how arrangements for children will be recorded. Will the agreement be kept flexible through a parenting plan, or formalised in legally binding consent orders? There is no single answer that suits every family. The right option depends on the level of trust between parents, the… Read More »Parenting plans vs consent orders explained

Sperm donor family limit in Queensland explained

Queensland’s new sperm donor family limit was intended to create clarity, consistency and better access to donor sperm. Instead, guidance issued to IVF clinics has produced a result that appears to halve donor access for many lesbian couples. The legislation provides for a 10-family limit. Yet where two women are in a couple and seek… Read More »Sperm donor family limit in Queensland explained

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board