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… Read More »Custom Single Post Header

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

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.

Things to Read, Watch & Listen

What is the Fertility Society of Australia & New Zealand

In this video, Accredited Family Law Specialist and Page Provan Director Stephen Page introduces the Fertility Society of Australia & New Zealand and this organization’s critical role in the IVF industry.

What is Access Australia & Why You Need to Know About it

In this video, Accredited Family Law Specialist and Page Provan Director Stephen Page explains what Access Australia is and how it helps those who need assisted reproductive treatment.

Who Is a Parent Then – Is Three a Crowd?

Stephen Page’s Paper presented to the Legal Services Commission, Adelaide on 19 November, 2021.