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

Mexico Surrogacy Update: New Court Rulings Change Everything

Mexico has long been on many Australian intended parents’ lists for surrogacy. It offered a path that, for years, was relatively fast compared with some other jurisdictions. But Mexico is not standing still. Recent decisions from the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice have significantly reshaped how surrogacy is handled through the courts, and those legal… Read More »Mexico Surrogacy Update: New Court Rulings Change Everything

Colombia Surrogacy Update: The Bill That Died

Planning surrogacy in Colombia can feel like navigating two legal systems at the same time. There is what Colombia does (or decides not to do). And there is what Australian law requires of intended parents, even when the arrangement happens overseas. A recent development in Colombia matters because it affects whether foreign intended parents may… Read More »Colombia Surrogacy Update: The Bill That Died

High Net Worth Divorce: What You Need to Know

When a relationship ends, the legal rules about dividing property, superannuation, and financial responsibilities do not magically change just because someone is wealthy. The same family law principles still apply. But high net worth divorces bring a different level of complexity. In practical terms, these are cases where couples separation involves significant assets and superannuation,… Read More »High Net Worth Divorce: What You Need to Know

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