Whether 14 Years of Post-Divorce Cohabitation and Joint Child-Rearing Constitutes a De Facto Relationship and How Property Rights are Determined?

Post-Divorce Cohabitation and De Facto Status: When Does “Living Together Again” Create Property Jurisdiction Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Sampson & Sampson [2021] FCCA 1471, 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: Federal Circuit Court of Australia (at Cairns)

Presiding Judge: Judge Willis AM

Cause of Action: Application for a declaration of a de facto relationship pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), in the context of foreshadowed property adjustment proceedings under s 90SM

Judgment Date: 29 June 2021

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: De facto relationship

Keyword 3: Separated under one roof

Keyword 4: Post-divorce cohabitation

Keyword 5: Composite picture principle

Keyword 6: Credibility and documentary inferences

Background (without revealing the result in advance)

After a 10-year marriage ended in separation and divorce, the parties resumed living under the same roof for many years. One party said the relationship slowly “re-grew” into a couple relationship on a genuine domestic basis, even though they never remarried. The other party insisted they were merely co-parents and companions sharing a home for practical reasons, and that whatever looked like couple life was either for the children or convenience.

The practical stakes were immediate and serious: if the Court accepted that a de facto relationship existed for the relevant period, the Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a property adjustment claim under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). If the Court rejected it, the applicant’s pathway to property relief in the federal family law jurisdiction would collapse.

Core Disputes and Claims

The Court was required to determine one central, jurisdiction-creating fact question:

Did the parties, after divorce, have “a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis” within the meaning of s 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and if so, for what period?

Relief sought:

Applicant’s claim: A declaration under s 90RD that a de facto relationship existed from about 2005 (or later as found) until early May 2018.

Respondent’s claim: A declaration under s 90RD that no de facto relationship existed after separation in 2003, and that the relationship ended finally at separation.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

This case began like many family disputes, not with a legal strategy, but with a life that refused to fit neatly into legal categories.

The parties married in the early 1990s and had three children. The marriage broke down after a turbulent period. The separation in 2003 was not a quiet administrative step; it was marked by conflict, police involvement, and immediate practical dislocation. The Applicant (the Wife) left the home and lived in unstable accommodation, including a women’s shelter and friends’ houses. The Respondent (the Husband) remained in the former matrimonial home with the children.

A parenting dispute followed. Interim arrangements were contested, then replaced by an agreed week-about regime, and ultimately discontinued. Against that background, a “temporary” solution emerged: the Wife moved back into the home in 2004. On both accounts, the starting point was not romantic reconciliation. It was necessity: housing, money, and the day-to-day reality of raising children.

Detail Reconstruction: Relationship Re-Formation Through Daily Life

From 2004, the parties lived in the same home for around 14 years. At first, they agreed they lived separately under one roof. The Wife slept in a separate area. The divorce was applied for and granted while the parties remained in the same house, separated.

Then the narratives diverged.

The Wife’s account was gradualism: relationships do not restart like a light switch. Over time, she said, she returned to the main bedroom, resumed an intimate relationship, shared parenting and family obligations, attended family events as a couple, and travelled together frequently, including multiple overseas holidays without the children. In her telling, the family operated as an intact unit, and she would not have stayed 14 years merely as a “companion”.

The Husband’s account was compartmentalisation: he accepted cohabitation, shared care, and shared expenses, but reframed them as a practical co-parenting arrangement. He alleged they maintained separate lives, did not resume sexual relations, and that the appearance of coupledom was either accidental or staged for the children.

Conflict Foreshadowing: The Decisive Moment

The decisive moment was not the move-in in 2004. It was the later point when the Wife left in 2018 and then filed for property relief in 2019. Only then did the question sharpen from “how did you live?” into “what were you, legally?”

The reason is structural: in family law, a de facto finding is not merely symbolic. It is a gateway to federal jurisdiction for property adjustment. When the Wife sought property division, the Husband’s strategic position became: no de facto relationship, no property claim in this jurisdiction.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

This case is an evidence lesson in a single question: what is stronger, paper or life?

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

Cohabitation as a couple over many years: the Wife’s evidence that after an initial separated-under-one-roof phase, she moved back to the master bedroom and resumed couple life.
Sexual relationship: her evidence that intimacy resumed; supported by the adult child’s testimony that he overheard sexual activity and observed bedroom arrangements.
Public presentation and reputation: photographs over many years showing the parties at weddings, family events, Christmas celebrations, and travel, presenting as a couple.
Holidays and planning: evidence of approximately ten trips over 2009–2018, many without children, with shared planning and shared payments, inconsistent with a purely platonic “roommates” story.
Financial interdependence: evidence of a practical division of expenses resembling a household arrangement, including mortgage payments mainly by the Husband and schooling and household costs by the Wife once she returned to stable employment, as well as transfers between them.
Property acquisition: evidence that a further property was acquired in 2014 in joint names (with the Husband’s father), which the Wife said she would not have done unless they were still a couple.
Documentary “intimacy markers”: bank transfer descriptions containing sexualised wording, and a payment with wording suggesting intimacy, which the Wife argued was inconsistent with a claimed platonic relationship.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

Separated under one roof indefinitely: the Husband’s assertion that the parties never transitioned back to being a couple after separation, despite cohabitation.
No sexual relationship: categorical denial of intimacy after 2003.
Separate lives and other relationships: evidence that he had relationships with other women, and that this indicated the absence of a couple relationship with the Wife.
Government and administrative documents: reliance on Centrelink and child support-related correspondence said to indicate the Wife was treated as single for benefit purposes, which he argued was inconsistent with de facto status.
Alleged property settlement: assertions that he paid the Wife a lump sum and further sums as an informal settlement, supporting the idea that the marriage property issues had been finalised and the later cohabitation was not a continuing relationship.

Core Dispute Points

Timing and nature of the transition: if there was a shift from separated-under-one-roof to couple life, when did it occur?
Reliability of documents as relationship evidence: do Centrelink and child support letters prove relationship status, or do they merely reflect administrative classifications and incomplete data?
Credibility and consistency: whose story is coherent when tested against long-run behaviour—holidays, family events, household arrangements, money transfers, and the adult child’s evidence?
The “composite picture”: whether the totality of evidence showed lives merged into one, financially, emotionally, and physically.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits are the courtroom’s “first draft of the story”. They are not neutral. They are structured persuasion under oath.

In this matter, each party’s affidavit strategy reflected a different way of defining the same 14 years.

How the Applicant’s Affidavits Built a Persuasive Narrative

The Wife’s affidavit approach was relational and experiential. She framed the relationship as a gradual resumption: shared home, shared parenting, shared social identity, and shared intimacy. The factual emphasis was not only on who paid which bill, but on the rhythm of life: who slept where, how the family presented, how holidays were planned, and why the Wife’s continued cohabitation made sense only if she believed the relationship had resumed.

Her affidavit also anticipated the predictable attack: “If you were together, why were you getting single benefits?” So her position relied on honesty, confusion of long-ago administration, and the reality that welfare compliance questions do not map neatly onto the lived complexity of reconciliation.

How the Respondent’s Affidavits Tried to Re-Label the Same Facts

The Husband’s affidavit approach was re-characterisation. He accepted a large amount of behaviour that ordinarily looks like a relationship—cohabitation, shared parenting, travel, joint social events—but he relabelled it as “companionship” or “performance” for the children. His affidavits leaned heavily into documents: Centrelink letters, child support correspondence, tax documentation. The aim was to show an official paper trail consistent with separation.

However, affidavit strategy has a vulnerability: it must survive cross-examination. A narrative that depends on tight control of the “meaning” of each document can collapse if the Court finds that the documents are generic, ambiguous, or based on incomplete data, and if the long-run conduct points the other way.

In-Depth Comparison: Different Expressions of the Same Fact

Example theme: “why we lived together”.

Applicant’s framing: “We rebuilt the relationship and lived as a couple again; the house was our family home.”

Respondent’s framing: “We lived together for the children, but as companions, not as a couple.”

The same factual platform—14 years under one roof—was either the strongest indicator of a merged life or merely the staging ground for a long, pragmatic co-parenting arrangement. The Court’s task was to decide which interpretation matched the credible, composite reality.

Strategic Intent Behind Procedural Directions About Affidavits

Where a case turns on lived reality across many years, affidavits do more than set out facts; they set the battleground for credibility. The Court’s procedural management in such matters typically aims to:

Pin down asserted timelines (even if approximate) so cross-examination can test them.
Identify documentary anchors (letters, transfers, travel bookings) to test memory.
Expose the difference between “what the witness now says” and “what contemporaneous conduct suggests”.

That is why this matter became document-heavy: not because documents are always decisive, but because they are a tool for stress-testing credibility.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final determination, the case required procedural arrangements typical of a discrete issue hearing.

Key procedural features included:

The matter proceeding as a discrete hearing on the de facto declaration question, rather than running the entire property settlement at the same time.
Extensive affidavit material from both sides, including third-party affidavits.
Significant exhibit and tender bundles, including voluminous bank statements and documentary records.
A multi-day hearing despite being listed as a one-day matter, reflecting the practical reality that credibility disputes with long-run factual matrices expand in court time.
Final submissions and supplementary materials provided after the hearing, including spreadsheet-style analysis of financial transactions.

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

The hearing in this matter functioned like an audit of a relationship, conducted years after the fact.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration of Cross-Examination

The cross-examination of the Wife focused on documents intended to prove “single status” in the relevant years: Centrelink letters, Family Tax Benefit notices, child support correspondence, and tax-adjacent records. The forensic method was incremental: build inference upon inference until the only “possible” explanation, the Husband argued, was that the Wife was single and therefore not in a de facto relationship.

The cross-examination also targeted memory. The Wife could not reliably identify the exact date of reconciliation. She conceded she may have miscalculated and that the transition was later than first stated. This was used to argue unreliability.

But the hearing also revealed a crucial distinction: a witness can be imprecise about dates and still be honest about the reality of a relationship’s evolution.

The Husband’s cross-examination, by contrast, became a test of narrative plausibility. The more he accepted behaviours that look like couple life—holidays without children, intimate photographs, social presentation as spouses—the more strained the “companions only” label became.

Core Evidence Confrontation: The Decisive Exhibits and the Attack-and-Defence

The Centrelink “single parent” documents: the Husband relied on them as relationship proof. The Wife resisted the inference, explaining administrative processes, generic letters, and the difficulty of reconstructing welfare communications many years later.
Photographs and social presentation: the Wife relied on the visual and social fabric of the relationship. The Husband attempted to neutralise these by saying they were for the children or convenience. The Court assessed whether that explanation was credible across 14 years.
Holidays: repeated travel, particularly trips taken without children, became a practical credibility test. The Court examined the illogic of repeatedly travelling alone with a person you claim to fear, or to whom you claim you are merely a companion.
Financial transactions: the Court examined transfers and expense sharing, not to prove romance, but to test the degree of interdependence.
The adult child’s evidence: direct, personal evidence about bedroom arrangements and intimacy.

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Result Under the Statute

The statutory question required the Court to assess all circumstances and not treat any single factor as necessary or determinative. The logic was holistic: the Court asked whether the parties’ lives were merged into one, connoting financial, emotional, and physical interdependence.

The reasoning pivoted away from the Husband’s attempt to isolate documents and treat them as decisive.

Financial arrangements cannot be taken in isolation and considered of particular importance in determining the nature of relationship. Their materiality, like each of the other elements of the relationship, stems from the impact which they have as part of an overall situation. Each element of a relationship draws its colour and its significance from the other elements… What must be looked at is the composite picture.

This statement mattered because it set the methodology. If the Court accepted that relationship status is assessed by a composite picture, then a series of generic administrative letters cannot automatically defeat strong evidence of merged life over many years. The Court’s task became: what does the totality of conduct show, especially where documents are ambiguous and the lived reality is extensive?

The Court also reasoned that relationships evolve, can be unhappy, can include other relationships, and still subsist as de facto relationships. That neutralised the Husband’s reliance on alleged other partners as a “disproof” mechanism.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made the following operative determinations:

Pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court declared that the parties were in a de facto relationship from 2006 until 3 May 2018.
The Respondent’s application for a declaration that no de facto relationship existed after separation in 2003 was dismissed.
The Respondent’s application for a declaration that the relationship concluded at separation on 31 July 2003 was dismissed.

The practical consequence is jurisdictional: the declaration established a foundation for property proceedings under s 90SM in relation to the de facto period, subject to the remaining questions of contributions, future needs, and what is just and equitable.

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

This chapter uses a five-link structure to unpack why the successful party succeeded and why the losing party failed.

The five links are:

Statutory Provisions
Evidence Chain
Judicial Original Quotation
Losing Party’s Reasons for Failure
Practical Extraction for Future Cases

The required internal order for analysis content in this chapter is: Special Analysis → Judgment Points → Legal Basis → Evidence Chain → Judicial Original Quotation → Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure.

Special Analysis

This case has unusual jurisprudential value because it sits at the intersection of three realities that commonly collide in family law, but rarely with such longevity:

Post-divorce cohabitation for a very long period.
A “separated under one roof” phase that later allegedly transformed into a de facto relationship.
A defensive narrative that conceded many couple-like facts while denying the legal character of the relationship.

The case illustrates a core principle: the Court’s jurisdiction does not turn on the label one party later chooses. It turns on the nature of the relationship proven by the composite picture of evidence.

It also demonstrates the evidentiary risk of “document-only reasoning” in family law. Government correspondence can be powerful, but only if it reliably reflects the factual situation, and only if it is interpreted in context. In long relationships with complex administrative history, that reliability is often contested.

Judgment Points

Victory Point 1: The Court treated relationship status as a question of fact, not a rhetorical contest.

The Court approached the question as a factual inquiry under s 4AA, not as an evaluation of who had the better slogan. “Companions” is not a statutory category that defeats a de facto relationship. The statute asks: were they a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis? The Court therefore tested whether the “companions” label explained the evidence better than the “couple” explanation.

Victory Point 2: The Court refused to let the case be decided by isolated administrative documents.

The Husband’s litigation strategy aimed to convert Centrelink and child support correspondence into a relationship verdict. The Court recognised that such documents are not automatically determinative, especially where letters are generic, where the data inputs are unclear, and where the inference chain requires assumption upon assumption.

Victory Point 3: The Court recognised the human reality of gradual reconciliation.

The Wife’s inability to state a precise start date did not defeat her case. The Court accepted that relationships are not contractual switches and that gradual merging back into couple life is plausible, especially after traumatic separation and complex co-parenting arrangements.

Victory Point 4: Long-run behaviour outweighed post-hoc narrative control.

The Husband’s explanation required the Court to accept that for 14 years the parties performed an intact family for the children, travelled extensively together (often alone), attended events as a couple, and lived interdependently—yet were not actually a couple. The Court assessed that narrative against the practical logic of repeated conduct. The more repeated the conduct, the less credible the “performance only” claim became.

Victory Point 5: The credibility imbalance widened under cross-examination.

The Wife conceded errors in her dating and did not attempt to “win” every point. That was consistent with honesty. The Husband, however, shifted his evidence on key topics, including the alleged property settlement payment amounts. The Court treated this as a serious weakness because it went to whether the Husband was reconstructing history to suit litigation objectives.

Victory Point 6: The adult child’s evidence functioned as an “inside the house” credibility anchor.

Relationship disputes often suffer from the problem that only two people truly know what happened in private. A mature child’s evidence about bedroom arrangements and the practical presentation of the parents can become a powerful anchor, not because it proves every element, but because it corroborates the plausibility of one narrative over the other.

Victory Point 7: Alleged other relationships did not logically defeat de facto status.

The Court applied the principle that exclusivity is not necessary. Even if one party had other relationships, the statutory inquiry remains whether the parties were a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis, having regard to all circumstances.

Victory Point 8: The joint acquisition of property during cohabitation was a strong objective indicator of mutual commitment.

The purchase of another property in 2014 in joint names (including a third party) was treated as difficult to reconcile with the idea that the Wife was merely a companion. The Court assessed plausibility: why would a person lock themselves into a difficult-to-sell one-third interest in a family arrangement unless the underlying relationship context was more than companionship?

Legal Basis

The controlling statutory framework was the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), including:

Section 90RD: power to declare that a de facto relationship existed or never existed for the purposes of proceedings including s 90SM.
Section 4AA(1): definition of a de facto relationship, including the requirement that, having regard to all circumstances, the persons have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.
Section 4AA(2): circumstances that may be considered, including duration, common residence, sexual relationship, financial dependence, property, mutual commitment, registration, care and support of children, and reputation/public aspects.
Section 4AA(3) and (4): no particular finding is necessary; the Court may attach weight as appropriate.

The Court also relied upon and applied principles from authorities including Lynam & Director-General of Social Security, Sinclair & Whittaker, Rooks & Padley, and Herford & Berke (No 2) as to the holistic, composite assessment.

Evidence Chain

The Court’s factual findings were built from an evidence chain rather than from a single “silver bullet” document. The key chain links included:

Duration and common residence: cohabitation in the former matrimonial home for around 14 years after the Wife returned, with the dispute being the character of that cohabitation.
Reputation and public aspects: extensive photographic evidence and social participation as a couple across both families and social settings, including events and holidays.
Holidays: repeated travel, including multiple overseas trips often without children, with shared planning and cost sharing, which the Court viewed as more consistent with couple status than mere convenience.
Sexual relationship indicators: the adult child’s evidence and other contextual indicators, including the implausibility of the Husband’s categorical denial in light of other evidence.
Financial interdependence: shared expenses and practical household economy, including corrections to the Husband’s assertions when records showed the Wife did pay mortgage and other outgoings at times, and the broader pattern of transfers and shared cost arrangements.
Property acquisition: a jointly held property acquired during the cohabitation period, supporting a family-like arrangement.
Credibility indicators: the Husband’s shifting evidence on alleged property settlement payments and the implausibility of his “pretend intact family for 14 years” narrative.

Judicial Original Quotation

The Court’s determinative reasoning was anchored by the composite assessment approach and by scepticism about “inference stacking” from generic documents.

Any attempt to isolate individual factors and to attribute to them relative degrees of materiality or importance involves a denial of common experience and will almost inevitably be productive of error. The endles scope for differences in human attitudes and activities means that there will be an almost infinite variety of combinations of circumstances which may fall for consideration. In any particular case, it will be a question of fact and degree… whether a relationship… meets the statutory test.

This quotation was determinative because it licensed the Court to reject the Husband’s central tactic: building a relationship verdict from isolated administrative signals. Once the Court adopted the “composite picture” method, the more persuasive account became the one that best explained the totality of lived conduct over the long period.

The Court also made findings rejecting the idea that the case required contractual precision:

This dispute is not a contractual dispute. It does not in my view lend itself to the precision being expected…

This mattered because it neutralised the argument that the Wife’s imprecise reconciliation date destroyed her case. The Court accepted that a gradual change can satisfy the statutory inquiry if the overall evidence supports it.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

Over-reliance on inference stacking from ambiguous documents.

The Husband asked the Court to treat Centrelink and child support letters as decisive, but the Court found that drawing such broad conclusions would require accepting the accuracy, context, and data inputs of each piece of correspondence. Where the documents were generic and the underlying circumstances uncertain, the inference chain was too weak.

A narrative inconsistent with repeated conduct.

The “companions only” narrative could not credibly explain why the parties repeatedly travelled alone together overseas, participated in each other’s family events as a couple, and maintained a household that functioned like a shared life.

Credibility damage from shifting and unsupported financial assertions.

The Husband’s changing accounts of alleged property settlement payments and his inability to substantiate key assertions undermined the reliability of his broader re-characterisation.

Implausibility of “pretence for the children” over 14 years.

The Court treated the claim of a sustained performance of coupledom as lacking detail and credibility, especially where there was no evidence of an agreement to do so and where the conduct exceeded what would ordinarily be explained by “for the children”.

Failure to counter the corroborative internal witness evidence.

The adult child’s evidence about bedroom arrangements and intimacy, alongside other evidence, made the Husband’s categorical denial harder to accept.

Implications

If you live like a couple for long enough, the law may treat you like a couple, even if you never remarry. Titles are easy; evidence is decisive.
Do not assume that being “divorced” permanently immunises you from later de facto status. Post-divorce life can create new legal realities.
If your living arrangement is genuinely separated under one roof, clarity protects you: consistent separation practices, transparent communications, and carefully documented arrangements reduce later dispute risk.
Administrative documents can help, but they are not a substitute for the lived evidence of a merged life. Courts look at the whole picture, not a single letter.
The most persuasive evidence often comes from ordinary life: patterns of money, holidays, household practice, and how you present to the world. The law is built from the everyday.

Q&A Session

Q1: If we are divorced, can we still be found to be in a de facto relationship with each other later?

Yes. Divorce ends a marriage, but it does not prevent the same two people from later forming a de facto relationship. The legal question is whether, having regard to all circumstances, you are a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis under s 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Q2: Do welfare or child support documents automatically prove you were single or not in a de facto relationship?

Not automatically. Such documents can be relevant, but their weight depends on context: what information was provided, whether the letter is generic, and how reliably the document reflects the lived reality. Courts may reject “inference stacking” where the evidentiary foundation is weak.

Q3: What evidence tends to carry the most weight in a disputed de facto case?

There is no single required factor. Courts often look closely at: common residence, public presentation, mutual commitment, financial interdependence, care of children, sexual relationship indicators, and objective conduct such as travel patterns and property acquisition. Credibility findings are often decisive.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

Chapter A1: Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype

Family Law – De facto relationship declaration after divorce and long cohabitation – “separated under one roof” transitioning to alleged de facto relationship – jurisdiction gateway for property adjustment under s 90SM

Judgment Nature Definition

Final Judgment on a discrete jurisdictional fact issue (de facto declaration) pursuant to s 90RD, which enables or disables subsequent substantive property adjustment proceedings.

Chapter A2: Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

This case belongs to category ① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law). The core legal standards below are rigorous reference points only. Outcomes tend to be determined by the specific evidence and the overall factual matrix.

Core Test: Existence of De Facto Relationship – Section 4AA Factors

A person is in a de facto relationship if, having regard to all the circumstances, they have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis, and they are not legally married to each other and not related by family. The Court may consider the following circumstances, and no single factor is necessary.

Duration of the relationship: The length of the asserted couple relationship and whether its continuity is shown by consistent conduct.
Nature and extent of common residence: Whether the parties lived together, for how long, and whether the living arrangement operated like a shared home.
Whether a sexual relationship exists: Not decisive alone, but may support or weaken competing narratives, especially where other evidence points strongly in one direction.
Degree of financial dependence or interdependence and financial support arrangements: Household pooling, shared expenses, transfers, and mutual reliance, while recognising that some couples keep separate accounts.
Ownership, use and acquisition of property: Joint ownership, joint liabilities, contributions to property, and whether property decisions reflect family-like interdependence.
Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: Evidence of planning, shared life goals, emotional interdependence, and the extent to which the parties’ lives are merged.
Whether the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law: If registration exists, it can strongly support the conclusion, but its absence is not fatal.
Care and support of children: Joint parenting, household roles, and family functioning may support a genuine domestic basis.
Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: How the parties present to family, friends, and the community; whether they are perceived as a couple.

Property Settlement: The Four-Step Process

If de facto jurisdiction is established and property proceedings proceed under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court commonly applies a four-step structure:

Identification and Valuation: Identify the net asset pool (assets minus liabilities), including real property, superannuation, vehicles, bank accounts, and debts.
Assessment of Contributions: Evaluate financial contributions, non-financial contributions, and contributions to the welfare of the family including homemaker and parenting contributions, across the relevant relationship period.
Adjustment for Future Needs: Consider statutory future-needs factors, including age, health, income earning capacity, care of children, and the practical economic effect of relationship roles.
Just and Equitable: Conduct the final evaluative check: whether the proposed outcome is fair in all the circumstances.

Parenting Matters: Section 60CC Framework

Where parenting issues arise, the best interests of the child guide decision-making, commonly structured by:

Primary considerations:

Benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.
Need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, with protection from harm given greater weight where they conflict.

Additional considerations may include the child’s views, parental capacity to meet needs, practical difficulty and expense of arrangements, and the history of involvement.

Chapter A3: Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

If statutory pathways are constrained or uncertain, equity and common law doctrines may offer alternative or supplementary avenues, depending on facts.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel

Key questions:

Did one party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation about property or financial arrangements?
Did the other party act in detrimental reliance, such as making contributions, foregoing opportunities, or assuming liabilities?
Would it be unconscionable for the promisor to resile from the promise?

Possible outcomes tend to include compensation reflecting reliance loss or, in some cases, a proprietary remedy where justice requires.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

Key questions:

Has one party received a benefit at the other’s expense, such as labour, money, or assumption of obligations?
Is it against conscience for that benefit to be retained without compensation?
Is a constructive trust or equitable accounting appropriate to prevent unconscionable retention?

In relationship contexts, these arguments tend to be fact-intensive and depend on clear evidence of contributions and the absence of a lawful basis for retention.

Procedural Fairness as a Litigation Discipline

Even in private disputes, procedural fairness concepts operate as practical disciplines: clear disclosure, coherent evidence, and transparent narratives. Where one party relies heavily on documents, procedural fairness requires that the Court understand their context and limitations and does not tend to accept inference chains that cannot be tested.

Chapter A4: Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

De facto jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) depends on proving a de facto relationship as defined, including the “couple living together on a genuine domestic basis” requirement.
Time sensitivity can arise in property proceedings, including limitation-style considerations and procedural rules, and parties should act promptly after separation where possible.
Evidence thresholds are practical: the stronger the corroboration of public presentation, shared life, and interdependence, the higher the likelihood the Court may find a de facto relationship, though outcomes remain fact-dependent.

Exceptional Channels

Shorter relationships can still be recognised where the composite picture indicates a genuine domestic basis, and where other statutory gateways apply.
Where cohabitation is “separated under one roof”, clear evidence of separation practices can be crucial. Conversely, where separation under one roof evolves into reconciliation, a gradual transition can still satisfy the statutory test.
Where administrative documents appear inconsistent with asserted relationship status, courts may still find a de facto relationship if the documentary context is ambiguous and the lived evidence is strong.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim solely because one document suggests “single” status. Compare the entire factual matrix against the statutory factors, because the composite picture often decides the case.

Chapter A5: Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

This authority is usefully cited in submissions concerning:

The approach to determining a de facto relationship as a question of fact under s 4AA, assessed holistically.
The limited determinative value of isolated administrative documents where context is uncertain.
The evidentiary significance of long-run conduct such as repeated holidays, public presentation as a couple, and financial interdependence.

Citation Method

As Positive Support: Where a matter involves post-separation or post-divorce cohabitation and one party claims “companionship only”, this case supports the proposition that the Court examines the composite picture and may prefer lived evidence over inference stacking from generic documents.

As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party relies on this authority, you may distinguish it by focusing on factual differences, such as the absence of long-run public presentation, the absence of travel or shared planning, clearer documentary evidence of separation, or stronger evidence of separate lives.

Anonymisation Rule: Use procedural titles such as Applicant and Respondent, or Wife and Husband where adopted by the Court, and avoid real names.

Conclusion

This case teaches a practical rule of modern family law: where life looks like a shared life, the Court may recognise it as such, even after divorce, because jurisdiction is built from the composite picture of evidence, not from a label chosen later for litigation advantage.

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.

Golden Sentence: When the facts show a shared life, the law follows the facts.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Sampson & Sampson [2021] FCCA 1471), 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.