De Facto Relationship Jurisdiction Dispute: When does intermittent cohabitation and a financially supportive romance become a “genuine domestic” couple under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Applicant v Respondent [2012] FamCA 114 (21 February 2012), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

• Court of Hearing: Family Court of Australia (Sydney registry)
• Presiding Judge: Johnston J
• Cause of Action: Threshold jurisdiction dispute under Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), including an application for a declaration about whether a de facto relationship existed
• Judgment Date: 21 February 2012
• Core Keywords:
  • Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
  • Keyword 2: De facto relationship definition
  • Keyword 3: Genuine domestic basis
  • Keyword 4: Jurisdictional threshold
  • Keyword 5: Credibility and corroboration
  • Keyword 6: Substantial contribution exception

Background

The Applicant and the Respondent were in an on-again, off-again intimate relationship that spanned multiple years and multiple addresses. The Applicant said the relationship was, in substance, like a married couple: shared life, shared routines, financial support, and social presentation as partners. The Respondent said the relationship never crossed the legal line into a de facto relationship because they never truly lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, and because the relationship was repeatedly disrupted by separations and other relationships.

This was not a trial about who behaved better. It was a threshold fight about whether the Court had power at all to make property settlement and spousal maintenance orders under Part VIIIAB. If the Court lacked jurisdiction, the Applicant’s substantive financial claims could not even be considered.

Core Disputes and Claims

• The legal focus question: Did the parties live together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis so that a de facto relationship existed within s 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and if so, did that relationship satisfy the gateway conditions in s 90SB?
• The Applicant’s relief sought:
  • Property settlement orders in her favour (a percentage share of the Respondent’s property)
  • Ongoing spousal maintenance (weekly payments)
  • Ancillary procedural funding orders (sought earlier and refused)
• The Respondent’s relief sought:
  • A declaration under s 90RD(1) that a de facto relationship between the parties never existed for the purposes of Part VIIIAB, or alternatively that it began before the commencement of Part VIIIAB (in the way the Respondent contended)
  • Dismissal of the Applicant’s substantive financial application on jurisdictional grounds

---

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship began with attraction and social contact, then grew into an intimate association shaped by the parties’ work patterns, travel, and an unusual feature that became central in court: the Respondent’s insistence on privacy and the Applicant’s retention of her own accommodation.

At the start, the relationship looked like many modern relationships: frequent messaging, social outings, and periods of closeness. The Applicant’s story was that, from a key early date, she “basically moved in”, building a domestic routine around the Respondent’s homes and their shared life. Her narrative was relationship-as-home: early intimacy, daily routines, reliance on the Respondent’s financial support, and a partnership expressed through domestic labour and emotional investment.

The Respondent’s story was relationship-as-romance: time together, intimacy, occasional stays, holidays, and social events, but not a merged household. He described repeated ruptures and the Applicant maintaining her own residence as her real base. His evidence also painted a broader context: overlapping romantic connections, shifting commitments, and a pattern of the Applicant being physically present only intermittently.

Detail Reconstruction

• The parties interacted across multiple locations and properties.
• The Applicant maintained her own apartment for much of the relevant period.
• The Respondent was said to have paid significant expenses associated with the Applicant’s housing later in the relationship.
• The relationship included periods of closeness and periods of separation, with disputes about when separations occurred and whether reconciliations happened.

Conflict Foreshadowing

The decisive moments were not dramatic single events; they were evidentiary fault-lines:
– whether the Applicant ever truly moved in, rather than merely staying over,
– whether the parties publicly lived as a couple, and
– whether the “domestic” aspects were real, consistent, and mutually intended, rather than occasional.

When the relationship ended, correspondence and conduct created a hard time boundary. The Court treated the end-date as crucial: if the relationship ended by late February 2010, then for the Applicant to meet the two-year jurisdictional gateway she needed to prove a genuine domestic de facto relationship existed by late February 2008 and continued, in substance, for the required time.

---

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• Assertion of commencement of a de facto relationship from a specific early date, with cohabitation across the Respondent’s properties and a rented apartment.
• Narrative of a shared domestic routine: early mornings, exercise, meals, cooking, cleaning, packing for work trips, and support for the Respondent’s lifestyle and projects.
• Claim of financial dependence on the Respondent and financial interweaving in practice.
• Social presentation: attendance at events, meeting family, and being treated as a couple in various settings.
• Claim of substantial contributions:
  • domestic contributions as homemaker,
  • alleged involvement in design and development aspects of the Respondent’s property projects,
  • claimed supportive role in the Respondent’s business and reputation.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• Denial that the Applicant ever moved in or established her principal residence at his homes.
• Evidence of intermittent contact rather than shared domestic life, including specific periods where the parties were apart.
• Evidence of the Respondent’s other romantic relationship(s) during key times the Applicant claimed cohabitation.
• A large body of third-party evidence (numerous witnesses) stating they saw no sign of the Applicant living at the Respondent’s homes: no clothes, no toiletries, no personal effects, no vehicle presence, and “single household” indicators.
• Documentary evidence used to anchor timelines and test credibility:
  • letters about the relationship ending and requests that the Applicant vacate her rented apartment,
  • objective records consistent with movement patterns and occupancy claims,
  • the Applicant’s own changing accounts as to separation dates.

Core Dispute Points

1. Whether the relationship met the legal definition of a de facto relationship in s 4AA: living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis.
2. Whether the relationship, if de facto, lasted at least two years in total so as to satisfy s 90SB(a).
3. If not two years, whether the Applicant could rely on the s 90SB(c) gateway: a substantial contribution of a kind described in s 90SM(4)(a)–(c) and serious injustice if no order were made.
4. Credibility: whose account was reliable when the stories conflicted.

---

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavit evidence sits at the heart of family law litigation because it is where a party commits to a version of events under oath and lays out the structure of their case. In this matter, the affidavits became a credibility battleground.

How each side used affidavits as a strategy

• The Applicant’s affidavits attempted to build a coherent “couple narrative” by describing day-to-day domestic life and contributions. The persuasive strategy was to show relationship features that mirror marriage: shared routines, assumed domestic roles, and reliance.
• The Respondent’s affidavits used detail as a weapon. The approach was to pin down dates, events, and objective circumstances, then corroborate them through multiple independent witnesses and documents.

Comparing expressions of the same facts

The conflict was not merely different interpretations; it was often contradictory fact assertions:
– whether the Applicant stayed at the Respondent’s home from an early date,
– whether the parties had a single shared home,
– whether the Applicant’s “home base” shifted to the Respondent’s properties,
– whether domestic contributions were real and regular or exaggerated.

Where one affidavit asserts domestic regularity, but a series of witnesses says they observed no domestic indicators over extended periods, the Court faces a practical question: does the claimed domestic life exist in a way that would usually leave traces?

Strategic intent behind procedural directions

The jurisdiction issue was separated for determination first. This was a rational forensic decision: if jurisdiction failed, the Court should not expend time and cost on valuing assets or assessing contributions for substantive orders it had no power to make. For practitioners, this is a textbook example of isolating a dispositive threshold issue early to avoid unnecessary litigation expense.

---

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final determination, the Court made procedural arrangements to ensure the jurisdiction issue was tried as a discrete question. Key features included:
– ordering that the jurisdiction question be determined separately from substantive property and maintenance issues,
– setting the matter for a multi-day hearing to receive affidavit and oral evidence, including cross-examination,
– managing applications about litigation funding or interim costs (one such application was refused),
– reserving costs pending outcome.

---

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

This hearing was not won by a single dramatic document. It was won by the slow, cumulative pressure of tested evidence.

The Court treated credibility as central. The Applicant was cross-examined extensively. The Respondent’s case deployed multiple witnesses whose evidence, crucially, was either unchallenged or scarcely challenged.

A decisive forensic fact emerged: the Applicant did not effectively cross-examine the Respondent on critical issues and only cross-examined a very small subset of the Respondent’s witnesses. In adversarial litigation, unchallenged evidence often carries significant weight because the Court is entitled to accept it unless there is a compelling reason not to.

The Applicant’s oral evidence encountered repeated difficulties: non-responsive answers, claimed lack of memory at key points, and inconsistencies with her affidavit account. Meanwhile, the Respondent’s witness ensemble functioned as a corroboration machine: neighbour observations, friends’ repeated visits, professional contractors’ early-morning presence, and household observations about the absence of any female co-residence indicators.

Core Evidence Confrontation

1. Separation date anchoring
   • The Court identified a clear outer boundary: the relationship ended no later than late February 2010.
   • That pushed the key question backward: could the Applicant prove a genuine domestic de facto relationship existed by late February 2008?
2. Cohabitation and “trace evidence”
   • Many witnesses who were frequently at the Respondent’s properties described never seeing the Applicant’s belongings, never seeing her vehicle, and never observing any pattern consistent with a shared household.
   • This kind of evidence matters because genuine cohabitation tends to leave ordinary traces: clothing, toiletries, routine presence, shared domestic arrangements, and consistent overnight patterns.
3. Competing relationship evidence
   • Evidence about other romantic relationships during the relevant period was used to test whether there was mutual commitment to a shared life.
   • The Court used this not as moral judgement, but as a factual indicator relevant to the s 4AA(2) factors, particularly commitment, public aspects, and exclusivity as an indicator of household integration.

Judicial Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning moved in a structured way:
– fix the end date,
– ask what must be proved to satisfy the two-year gateway,
– examine the relationship features against the statutory indicators,
– determine credibility and weight,
– conclude whether the statutory threshold is met.

Translated from the published reasons: The Court determined that the evidence strongly contradicted the claim that there was a shared residence early in the relationship, and that the relationship did not reach the level where the Court could find the parties lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis.

This statement is determinative because it captures the legal hinge: without a genuine domestic couple-life, the Court cannot find a de facto relationship for Part VIIIAB, and jurisdiction fails at the first gate.

---

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made orders that:
– declared that, for the purposes of Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), there had never been a de facto relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent,
– dismissed the Applicant’s amended initiating application seeking property and maintenance orders,
– reserved costs.

---

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This judgment is a practical demonstration of a principle that surprises many lay readers: a relationship can be emotionally intense, financially supportive, and socially visible, yet still fail the legal test for a de facto relationship if the evidence does not establish living together on a genuine domestic basis.

The case also shows that “time together” is not the same as “cohabitation”. The law is not counting romance-hours; it is assessing whether the parties formed a household as a couple.

Judgment Points

1. The Court treated the end date as a jurisdictional boundary and rebuilt the timeline from that anchor.
2. The Court preferred a structured statutory inquiry over broad impressions.
3. The Court treated credibility as decisive where the parties’ narratives diverged.
4. The Court placed significant weight on independent corroboration and the absence of ordinary domestic traces.
5. The Court refused to dilute the “substantial contribution” gateway into a general fairness discretion.

Legal Basis

The key statutory provisions were:
– Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4AA: definition of de facto relationship, including the requirement to consider “all the circumstances” and the list of relevant factors.
– Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 90SB: gateway conditions for making property or maintenance orders in de facto matters, including the two-year requirement and the substantial contribution and serious injustice exception.
– Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 90RD: power to declare whether a de facto relationship existed or never existed for the purposes of Part VIIIAB.
– Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140(1): civil standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Evidence Chain

The winning case structure can be described as “conclusion = evidence + statutory provisions”:

• Conclusion sought: no de facto relationship for Part VIIIAB; therefore no jurisdiction.
• Evidence used to prove it:
  • multiple independent witnesses with frequent opportunities to observe the Respondent’s household,
  • observations of the absence of Applicant’s belongings, vehicle, and domestic integration,
  • timeline documents and communications anchoring separation and relationship status,
  • evidence of inconsistent accounts and credibility concerns,
  • evidence undermining the idea of mutual commitment to a shared domestic life.

Judicial Original Quotation

“ ‘Substantial’ means something more than the usual or ordinary. The provision is aimed at special circumstances in which the application of the time requirement would otherwise result in serious injustice.”

This is determinative because it preserves the integrity of s 90SB(a). If ordinary contributions could always qualify as “substantial”, the two-year gateway would be hollow. The Court used this interpretive approach to reject an attempt to turn a short relationship with ordinary domestic acts into jurisdiction for major financial redistribution.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

1. Failure to prove the de facto relationship threshold
   • The Applicant’s narrative depended heavily on her own account of cohabitation and domestic integration.
   • The Court found that the objective and third-party evidence did not support the claim of a genuine shared household, particularly in the early period needed to reach two years.
2. Credibility issues
   • Inconsistencies between affidavit statements and oral evidence undermined reliability.
   • Non-responsive answers and shifting accounts weakened the persuasive force of the Applicant’s case.
3. Forensic disadvantage: limited challenge to the Respondent’s witness evidence
   • A large body of the Respondent’s corroborative evidence was effectively left untested.
   • Practically, that allowed the Court to accept substantial parts of the Respondent’s case as reliable.
4. Substantial contribution gateway not established
   • The Applicant conceded no direct financial contributions to property.
   • Alleged non-financial property contributions were contradicted by independent professional witnesses.
   • Homemaker-type contributions were assessed as, at most, ordinary and not “substantial” in the statutory sense, especially given the relatively short period.
5. Serious injustice not established
   • The Court weighed financial support provided by the Respondent (including significant rent payments and other expenses) against the Applicant’s claimed losses.
   • On the evidence accepted, the Court was not satisfied that refusing orders would cause serious injustice.

8 Victory Points: What actually won the case

1. The timeline anchor strategy
   • Establishing a clear end date forced the Applicant into a narrower proof task: she had to prove genuine domestic life existed by a specific earlier date and persisted sufficiently.
2. The “household traces” method
   • The Respondent’s case used a simple but powerful proposition: shared domestic life leaves routine traces. Repeated witness observations of no traces were persuasive.
3. Overwhelming corroboration
   • The Respondent presented a large cohort of witnesses from different roles: friends, neighbours, professionals, and service providers. The diversity reduced the risk that the evidence was merely partisan.
4. Using independent professionals as credibility anchors
   • Evidence from professionals involved in the Respondent’s properties undercut claims of the Applicant’s alleged design and development contributions.
5. Exposing overstatement
   • The Court treated exaggeration as damaging because the de facto test is holistic and credibility-dependent.
6. Separating romance from jurisdiction
   • The Respondent’s case consistently framed the dispute as a legal threshold question, not a moral referendum, keeping the Court focused on statutory requirements.
7. Preserving the meaning of “substantial”
   • The Respondent’s argument aligned with the statutory purpose: s 90SB(c) is an exception for special cases, not a general safety net.
8. Unchallenged evidence advantage
   • Where evidence is not put in issue by cross-examination, it often stands as accepted fact. That procedural reality became a substantive advantage.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

• Miller and Trent [2011] FMCAfam 324: illustrates the interpretive approach to “substantial contribution” in the s 90SB(c) gateway, emphasising that “substantial” must exceed the usual or ordinary contributions in a short relationship.
• V and K [2005] FCWA 80: provides guidance that “substantial” is directed to special circumstances; ordinary homemaking contributions in short, childless relationships tend not to satisfy the test.

Implications

1. If you are building a de facto case, you must build a “household story” that can be proved objectively, not just emotionally described.
2. Cohabitation is not proved by a suitcase and a toothbrush. It is proved by patterns that independent people can notice and documents can confirm.
3. If you keep your own home throughout, you should expect the Court to scrutinise whether your partner’s home was truly your primary residence.
4. Cross-examination is not optional theatre. If you do not challenge the other side’s key witnesses, their evidence may become the platform the Court stands on.
5. The law’s exceptions are not built for sympathy; they are built for principled fairness. To rely on s 90SB(c), your contributions must be genuinely out of the ordinary, and serious injustice must be demonstrable.

Q&A Session

1. Why did “three years of relationship” not automatically equal a de facto relationship?
   Because the legal test is not the length of the romance; it is whether the parties lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, assessed by the statutory factors and the totality of evidence.

2. What kind of evidence best proves “genuine domestic basis”?
   Objective, consistent evidence: shared address records, consistent overnight patterns, belongings at the home, shared bills, joint decisions, witnesses who observed routine domestic life, and documents that match the story.

3. Can financial support alone create a de facto relationship?
   Financial support can be relevant, but it does not substitute for living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. It is a factor, not the test.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

• Case Subtype: Family Law — De Facto Relationship Threshold and Jurisdiction Dispute (Part VIIIAB) — Property Settlement and Spousal Maintenance Access Gate
• Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment (jurisdiction determined; substantive application dismissed)

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)

Core Test: Existence of De Facto Relationship — Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4AA

A person is in a de facto relationship with another person if:
– the persons are not legally married to each other; and
– the persons are not related by family; and
– having regard to all the circumstances of their relationship, they have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.

When assessing whether people have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis, the Court may consider any or all of the following circumstances:

1. Duration of the relationship
   Consider whether the relationship persisted over time in a way consistent with a shared life, including whether separations occurred and whether the relationship was continuous or episodic. A longer relationship can support an inference of commitment, but duration alone does not establish genuine domestic cohabitation.

2. Nature and extent of common residence
   Examine whether the parties had a shared home in practice, not merely occasional stays. Consider whether one address functioned as the primary base, whether both contributed to maintaining that residence, and whether the pattern of residence reflects a shared household.

3. Whether a sexual relationship exists
   Sexual intimacy may support a conclusion of couplehood, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient. The Court examines how intimacy fits within the broader domestic and relational context.

4. Degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support
   Consider whether one party relied on the other for living expenses, whether finances were merged, whether there were joint accounts, shared liabilities, regular transfers, or other signs of financial integration. Gifts and discretionary support may be relevant but may carry less weight than structured interdependence.

5. Ownership, use and acquisition of property
   Consider whether the parties acquired property together, shared use of property, pooled resources, or treated assets as “ours” rather than “mine”. Exclusive ownership is not fatal, but consistent shared use and joint acquisition can be persuasive.

6. Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life
   This is often central. The Court looks for evidence of shared plans, mutual decision-making, emotional and practical commitment, and conduct consistent with building a life together. Evidence of repeated separations or concurrent relationships can be relevant to assessing commitment.

7. Whether the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed State or Territory law
   Registration is strong evidence supporting existence of a de facto relationship, although lack of registration does not prevent a finding where other factors support it.

8. Care and support of children
   Consider whether the parties shared parenting responsibilities, supported each other’s children, or acted as a family unit. The existence of a child can also be relevant to jurisdictional gateways elsewhere in the Act.

9. Reputation and public aspects of the relationship
   Consider whether the parties presented publicly as a couple, attended events together as partners, were known as a couple to family and friends, and whether their conduct was consistent with couplehood rather than private dating.

Additional statutory features of the assessment:
– The Court is not required to find each circumstance exists. The inquiry is holistic.
– The Court may consider any relevant matter and give each factor such weight as it considers appropriate in the circumstances.
– A de facto relationship can exist between opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
– A de facto relationship can exist even if one person is legally married to someone else or in another de facto relationship.

Property Settlement — The Four-Step Process

If jurisdiction is established and the Court proceeds to property settlement, the standard approach is:

1. Identification and Valuation
   Identify all assets, liabilities, superannuation interests, and financial resources, and determine the net asset pool. This may involve valuations and disclosure processes.

2. Assessment of Contributions
   Consider financial contributions (at commencement, during relationship, post-separation), non-financial contributions (improvements, unpaid labour), and contributions to the welfare of the family (homemaker and parenting roles). In de facto cases, these are considered under the relevant statutory framework.

3. Adjustment for Future Needs (s 75(2) Factors, applied as relevant)
   Consider age, health, income earning capacity, care of children, financial resources, and the practical realities affecting future capacity.

4. Just and Equitable Outcome
   Conduct the final fairness check: is the proposed alteration of property interests just and equitable in all circumstances? A just and equitable outcome is not automatic; it is an evaluative conclusion.

Parenting Matters — Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC

Primary considerations:
– The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents; and
– The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, including exposure to abuse, neglect, or family violence, with protection from harm given greater weight.

Additional considerations include, among other matters:
– the child’s views (having regard to maturity and understanding),
– the nature of relationships with parents and others,
– the capacity of each parent to provide for needs,
– the practical difficulty and expense of spending time with a parent,
– the attitude of each parent to the child and parental responsibilities.

Core Test: Jurisdictional Gateways — Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 90SB

A Court may only make de facto maintenance or property orders if at least one gateway is met:

• Two-year duration: the de facto relationship lasted for at least two years in total; or
• Child: there is a child of the de facto relationship; or
• Substantial contribution + serious injustice:
  • one party made a substantial contribution of a kind described in s 90SM(4)(a)–(c); and
  • failure to make an order would result in serious injustice; or
• Registered relationship: the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed State or Territory law.

In practice, a party relying on the substantial contribution exception should expect relatively high scrutiny because it operates as an exception to the time threshold.

Core Test: Contributions — Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 90SM(4)(a)–(c)

When determining whether, and how, to alter property interests, the Court must consider:

• financial contributions to the acquisition, conservation, or improvement of property,
• non-financial contributions to the acquisition, conservation, or improvement of property,
• contributions to the welfare of the family, including homemaker and parenting contributions.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Where Part VIIIAB jurisdiction is not available, parties sometimes consider alternative legal avenues. The viability tends to depend on evidence and the precise dealings between the parties.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel

• Did one party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation about property or financial security?
• Did the other party rely on that promise to their detriment, in a way that is objectively provable?
• Would it be unconscionable to allow the promisor to resile from the promise?

If these elements can be established, equity may provide relief to prevent unconscionable departure from an induced expectation. The risk is relatively high where the alleged promises are vague, informal, or unsupported by contemporaneous documents or reliable witnesses.

Unjust Enrichment or Constructive Trust

• Did one party receive a benefit at the other’s expense, in circumstances where retention without compensation is against conscience?
• Can the claimant establish a causal link between their contributions and the asset or benefit retained?
• Is a proprietary remedy proportionate, or is a personal restitutionary remedy more appropriate?

These claims can be evidentially demanding and fact-sensitive. Where contributions are ordinary domestic acts without clear linkage to specific property improvement or acquisition, courts tend to be cautious.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

• De facto jurisdiction under Part VIIIAB commonly requires:
  • proof of a de facto relationship within s 4AA, and
  • satisfaction of at least one s 90SB gateway, often the two-year duration rule.

Exceptional Channels

• If the relationship is under two years, the substantial contribution + serious injustice gateway can apply, but it tends to be determined narrowly and will often require:
  • contributions that are demonstrably beyond usual or ordinary,
  • clear evidence linking contributions to property or welfare outcomes, and
  • a persuasive demonstration of serious injustice if no order is made.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim solely because a relationship is short. Carefully compare your circumstances against the statutory gateways and the evidence you can actually prove. However, it is prudent to assume that relying on the exception without strong corroboration carries relatively high litigation risk.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

This case is useful in submissions involving:
– the meaning and practical application of “genuine domestic basis” in s 4AA,
– the evidentiary significance of corroboration and household indicators,
– the operation of s 90SB gateways, particularly the limits of the substantial contribution exception,
– the strategic utility of determining jurisdiction as a discrete preliminary issue.

Citation Method

• As positive support: If your matter involves contested cohabitation and the other side relies on broad assertions without objective support, this authority can reinforce a structured approach focusing on statutory factors and corroboration.
• As a distinguishing reference: If an opponent cites this case to deny de facto status, you can emphasise differences such as clear shared residence, joint financial arrangements, consistent public presentation, registration, or stronger documentary proof.

---

Conclusion

This judgment reduces a complex human relationship to a legal question with a disciplined answer: a de facto finding requires more than affection, support, and intermittent overnight stays; it requires proof of a shared domestic life as a couple, supported by credible, objective evidence and assessed against statutory criteria.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Applicant v Respondent [2012] FamCA 114), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.