Federal Circuit Court of Australia emblem
1: Kristoff & Emerson [2015] FCCA 13 | January 13, 2015
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Briginshaw test, Contributions, De Facto Relationship, De Facto Relationships, Meaningful Relationship, Proceedings to Alter Property Interests, Property, Substantial Relationship
Judges:  Judge Brewster


Background: The case involved a sex worker who made a claim for a property order against a former client turned partner of 8 years. The applicant alleged that she lived in a de facto relationship with the respondent from 2003 until 2011. The parties met in 1999 when the applicant “was employed as a sex worker and the respondent was one of her clients”, their relationship evolving to a point where the “applicant began to involve the respondent with her family” and from “2000 onwards the sexual relationship between the parties ceased to be a commercial one” 
 
  [Legal Issue]The Court ultimately found that whilst the parties did have a relationship that exceeded “friendship”, it was not enough to constitute a de-facto relationship. There was no financial interdependence or children of the relationship and the applicant did not give up sex work for the respondent. In any event, the Court held that on the facts, it would not be just and equitable to make orders altering the party’s property interests. Parties to a supposed de-facto relationship must evidence more than a mere sexual relationship. The Court will consider the totality of the relationship including amongst others, living arrangements and financial interdependence to establish the existence of a de-facto relationship.   [Court Orders]The Court found that the couple were not in a de facto relationship and as such the claim for property fails.      


[  ] Download Decision

Federal Circuit Court of Australia emblem
2: Regan & Walsh [2014] FCCA 2535 | November 6, 2014
Court or Tribunal: 
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.     


[  ] Download Decision

Family Court of Western Australia
3: Shelley and Markhov [2012] FCWA 68 | July 31, 2012
Court or Tribunal: 
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.     


[  ] Download Decision

Supreme Court of NSW emblem
5: Ye v Fung; Ye v Fung [2006] NSWSC 243 | April 7, 2006
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: De Facto Relationship, De Facto Relationships, Domestic Partner Declaration, Domestic relationship, Estate Planning, Failure of testatrix to make provision, Family Provision, Intestate, Substantial Relationship, Succession, Succession, Wills
Judges:  Gzell J


Background: This case considered the issue of family provisions and whether or not a young student who was living in a domestic relationship with an elderly woman was entitled to claim against the estate. Michael Ye, the plaintiff, came to Australia from China to study. Frances Lan Fong Fung (the deceased) was separated (but not divorced) from her husband, and invited Mr Ye to move into her unit where he lived in a non-sexual relationship with her. She was 37 years his senior. Frances Lan Fong Fung died on 21 June 2001. In her Will, Frances Lan Fong Fung made no provision for Mr Ye. Mr Ye made a claim against the estate, claiming that he was in a non-sexual de facto relationship with the deceased. 
 
  [Legal Issue]It was submitted that de facto is to be contrasted with de jure and the relationship determined by reference to the facts rather than a relationship between parties recognised at law. But that approach fails to give due regard to the requirement that the individuals in question live together as a couple. It was submitted that the word “couple” was one of wide import and required only that there be two unmarried adults. But the definition specifically requires two adult persons who are not married or related by family. To construe the word “couple” in that general sense, adds nothing further to the definition and renders the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, s 4(1)(a) otiose. It was submitted that the difference in age of 37 years was not, of itself, significant. The parties    [Court Orders]The Court found that Mr Ye was not the de facto spouse of the deceased within the meaning of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898, s 32G. As such, the plaintiff, Mr Ye, could not claim any relief against her estate on this basis. However, in separate but related proceedings, the plaintiff also claimed to be in a domestic relationship to the deceased, having considered her to be his "honorary auntie". These related proceedings were held subsequently to this hearing, and would be      


[  ] Download Decision