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

ART Update from Australia: Stephen Page Presents at South African Family Law Conference

On 11–13 March 2026, Stephen Page, Director at Page Provan Family and Fertility Lawyers, presented remotely at the prestigious 28th Annual MDT/UWC Global Family Law Conference in Cape Town, South Africa. As Australia’s leading surrogacy lawyer and an Accredited Family Law Specialist since 1996, Stephen delivered “ART Update from Australia”—a comprehensive overview of Australia’s evolving… Read More »ART Update from Australia: Stephen Page Presents at South African Family Law Conference

3 Countries You Should Never Use for Surrogacy

When intended parents consider international surrogacy, the legal and ethical landscape can be treacherous. One government has taken a blunt but pragmatic approach: rather than issuing a blanket prohibition on overseas commercial surrogacy, it has published a short list of specific countries where surrogacy arrangements will almost certainly jeopardise a child’s legal status. That list… Read More »3 Countries You Should Never Use for Surrogacy

Self-Represented Litigant in Family Court Australia: What You NEED to Know First

Representing yourself in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is increasingly common. Cost pressures, the perceived simplicity of some disputes and a desire to stay hands-on drive many people to act without a lawyer. That can work in certain circumstances, but there are important legal and practical limits to be aware of —… Read More »Self-Represented Litigant in Family Court Australia: What You NEED to Know First

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