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

Queensland’s IVF Legislation Crisis Explained

When lawmaking is rushed to meet political timetables, real people can become unintended casualties. Queensland’s recent overhaul of assisted reproductive technology laws provides a clear example: changes intended to protect patients instead created immediate and painful barriers to treatment. How a political deadline turned into a legal problem In 2023, the Queensland government declared regulation… Read More »Queensland’s IVF Legislation Crisis Explained

ALRC Surrogacy Law Review 2025: Expert Submission by Stephen Page

On 5 December 2025, Stephen Page, Director at Page Provan Family and Fertility Lawyers, submitted a comprehensive response to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of Australia’s surrogacy laws. As Australia’s leading surrogacy lawyer, Stephen has advised in over 2,000 surrogacy journeys since 1988—spanning domestic and international arrangements across 39 countries and every known surrogacy… Read More »ALRC Surrogacy Law Review 2025: Expert Submission by Stephen Page

Is the West Australian Surrogacy Act Unconstitutional?

The West Australian Surrogacy Act is at the centre of a constitutional challenge that could transform who may lawfully pursue surrogacy in Western Australia. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court on 18 November 2025, and judgment was expected within six weeks. At stake is whether state surrogacy rules that exclude single men, gay… Read More »Is the West Australian Surrogacy Act Unconstitutional?

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