friends with benefits
1: Regan & Walsh [2014] FCCA 2535 | November 6, 2014
Court or Tribunal: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Catchwords: De Facto Relationships, Meaningful Relationship, Same Sex Relationship, Substantial Relationship
Judges: Coker J
Background: The parties agreed that they knew each other from early 2005 and that, at times, they lived together throughout that period and shared sexual relations, but they disagreed as to the nature of their relationship. The applicant’s position was that their relationship was to the exclusion of all others and that it was one of a genuine domestic relationship. The respondent, on the other hand, described the relationship as one of “friends with benefits” and did not concede that there was ever a de facto relationship between the parties.
[Legal Issue]De facto property – threshold consideration of whether a de facto relationship exists so as to afford jurisdiction – factors to be considered – influence and significance of financial considerations when little else is agreed.
[Court Orders]The relationship was not found to be de facto in nature. Mr Regan’s application was dismissed and it was held that the Court could not make orders altering the parties’ property ownership.
Catchwords: De Facto Relationships, Meaningful Relationship, Same Sex Relationship, Substantial Relationship
Judges: Coker J
Background: The parties agreed that they knew each other from early 2005 and that, at times, they lived together throughout that period and shared sexual relations, but they disagreed as to the nature of their relationship. The applicant’s position was that their relationship was to the exclusion of all others and that it was one of a genuine domestic relationship. The respondent, on the other hand, described the relationship as one of “friends with benefits” and did not concede that there was ever a de facto relationship between the parties.
[Legal Issue]De facto property – threshold consideration of whether a de facto relationship exists so as to afford jurisdiction – factors to be considered – influence and significance of financial considerations when little else is agreed.
[Court Orders]The relationship was not found to be de facto in nature. Mr Regan’s application was dismissed and it was held that the Court could not make orders altering the parties’ property ownership.
2: Shelley and Markhov [2012] FCWA 68 | July 31, 2012
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Western Australia
Catchwords: De Facto Relationships, Substantial Relationship
Judges: CRISFORD J
Background: Ms Shelley, a registered nurse, moved into Dr Markhov's unit as his tenant in 1995, a few years after they had met. Over the years the pair bought properties and resided in them together as landlord and tenant. At times they lived on their own, but for the majority of the 14 years, they shared a house and maintained a regular sexual relationship. Ms Shelley claimed over that time the pair were in a "committed and marriage-like" relationship and slept together "every night". Dr Markhov however admitted that they had regular sex, but denied that they were in a "marriage-like" relationship. Dr Markhov claimed that over that time period he was actively looking for a life-partner who was "culturally compatible" to him, on dating websites and had even went overseas to meet women.
[Legal Issue]The court was asked to define the relationship as part of a property dispute between the Dr Markhov and Ms Shelley, who were housemates and had regular sex for 14 years, but otherwise disputed the precise nature of their relationship.
The application was lodged in the WA Family Court a few months before Dr Markhov married another woman in 2009.
[Court Orders]In handing down her decision, Judge Crisford said while she found some of Dr Markhov’s attitudes “dishonourable”, she was not satisfied there was a marriage-like relationship. He never intended to have a long-term relationship with her, she said.
Judge Crisford said Ms Shelley benefited from the arrangement in much the same way and disputed her claims of an exclusive, marriage-like relationship.
Catchwords: De Facto Relationships, Substantial Relationship
Judges: CRISFORD J
Background: Ms Shelley, a registered nurse, moved into Dr Markhov's unit as his tenant in 1995, a few years after they had met. Over the years the pair bought properties and resided in them together as landlord and tenant. At times they lived on their own, but for the majority of the 14 years, they shared a house and maintained a regular sexual relationship. Ms Shelley claimed over that time the pair were in a "committed and marriage-like" relationship and slept together "every night". Dr Markhov however admitted that they had regular sex, but denied that they were in a "marriage-like" relationship. Dr Markhov claimed that over that time period he was actively looking for a life-partner who was "culturally compatible" to him, on dating websites and had even went overseas to meet women.
[Legal Issue]The court was asked to define the relationship as part of a property dispute between the Dr Markhov and Ms Shelley, who were housemates and had regular sex for 14 years, but otherwise disputed the precise nature of their relationship.
The application was lodged in the WA Family Court a few months before Dr Markhov married another woman in 2009.
[Court Orders]In handing down her decision, Judge Crisford said while she found some of Dr Markhov’s attitudes “dishonourable”, she was not satisfied there was a marriage-like relationship. He never intended to have a long-term relationship with her, she said.
Judge Crisford said Ms Shelley benefited from the arrangement in much the same way and disputed her claims of an exclusive, marriage-like relationship.