De Facto Threshold Dispute in a High-Wealth Relationship: Can a Court declare a genuine domestic partnership when the parties mostly lived in hotels and kept separate homes?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Eide & Yoxall (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 320 (File No: MLC 2724 of 2021), 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 and Family Court of Australia (Division 1)
• Presiding Judge: Williams J
• Cause of Action: Family law threshold determination for de facto status, plus an application for disqualification on apprehended bias
• Judgment Date: 16 May 2024
• Core Keywords:
  • Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
  • Keyword 2: De facto relationship threshold
  • Keyword 3: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4AA
  • Keyword 4: Declaration under s 90RD
  • Keyword 5: Cohabitation not essential
  • Keyword 6: Credibility and impression management

Background

This was not yet a full property settlement case. It was the gateway dispute that decides whether the Court can even open the door to property adjustment and maintenance powers under Pt VIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Applicant asserted that, over several years, the parties lived as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, although in a modern and unusual way: extensive travel, long hotel stays, and a lifestyle funded by the Respondent. The Respondent denied the existence of any de facto relationship, describing the arrangement as non-exclusive and transactional, centred on co-parenting and financial support.

The practical reality behind this threshold is simple: if the Applicant succeeded, the Court could later determine property and maintenance claims. If the Respondent succeeded, those claims would likely collapse for want of jurisdiction.

Core Disputes and Claims

• What the Court was required to determine: Whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the parties had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis within s 4AA(1)(c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and therefore whether a declaration should be made under s 90RD.

• Applicant’s claim and relief sought:

  • A declaration under s 90RD that a de facto relationship existed from March 2017 to December 2020
  • Costs consequential upon that declaration
• Respondent’s claim and relief sought:
  • A declaration under s 90RD that a de facto relationship never existed
  • Dismissal of any consequential financial relief pathway and indemnity costs
• A significant procedural side dispute:
  • The Respondent also sought the trial judge’s disqualification on the basis of apprehended bias, relying on comments made during the conduct of the trial.

---

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

How the relationship began and why the label mattered

The parties commenced what both accepted was “some sort of relationship” in early 2017. From the beginning, the lived reality and the legal label pulled against each other.

On one narrative, the Applicant’s story was recognisably domestic: a romantic partnership; frequent nights together; integration into family and social events; the birth of a child; financial dependence; and promises about a future together, including marriage. On another narrative, the Respondent’s story was strategically narrow: a non-exclusive sexual relationship; intermittent contact; deliberate separation of homes; and financial support framed as generosity, incentives, or child-focused provision rather than coupledom.

The conflict hardened because the stakes were large. A de facto declaration is not a moral badge. It is a jurisdictional key. With that key, the Applicant could seek property alteration and maintenance orders under Pt VIIAB. Without it, the Respondent could insist the dispute belonged elsewhere.

Detail reconstruction: the lifestyle mechanics

The relationship unfolded across different places and different rules than many ordinary households. The Applicant lived in Melbourne. The Respondent lived primarily in another region and travelled extensively. When in Melbourne, the Respondent preferred hotel accommodation, not a conventional home. The Applicant said she effectively lived with him there for long periods, returning to her own apartment mainly to collect clothing. The Respondent denied cohabitation and denied that the Applicant ever lived with him.

There was also financial interweaving of a particular kind. The Applicant said the Respondent funded her life: direct payments into her account, credit cards, rent, travel, gifts, and other support. The Respondent accepted generosity but argued it was not unique to the Applicant and should not be mistaken for a de facto partnership.

Conflict foreshadowing: decisive moments that pushed the parties into Court

Three kinds of events repeatedly acted as accelerants:

1. Public presentation versus private denial
   The Applicant pointed to photos, events, holidays, and statements suggesting partnership. The Respondent pointed to his dating life, separate residences, and communications crafted to reduce legal risk.

2. The child and the “family” language
   Parenting and the child’s existence complicated any attempt to present the relationship as purely casual. Even where the parties argued bitterly, there were moments in the evidence where the Respondent used language of family and partnership, which the Applicant said reflected the true nature of their shared life.

3. Escalating disputes and parallel proceedings
   The factual background included serious allegations, criminal proceedings, and civil litigation elsewhere. The Court was not deciding those matters here, but their existence shaped credibility, strategy, and the intensity of the litigation.

Eventually, the Applicant commenced proceedings seeking parenting and financial relief. The Respondent drew a hard jurisdictional line: no de facto relationship, no property pathway.

---

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• Affidavit evidence describing a committed relationship
  The Applicant gave a detailed chronology asserting commitment, shared life, and reliance. She described frequent nights together, especially in hotel accommodation, and described the Respondent inviting her as his date to events and integrating her into family occasions.

• Financial evidence of dependence
  The Applicant relied on banking evidence and asserted large deposits over the relationship period, plus living expenses and lifestyle costs paid by the Respondent. The argument was not merely “money equals love”, but “money plus context equals dependence and shared life”.

• Evidence of mutual commitment and future planning
  The Applicant relied on texts and communications consistent with marriage talk and a shared future. She also relied on evidence of discussions about purchasing property and establishing a home.

• Objective evidence: photos, texts, and recorded material
  Photographs tendered showed the parties in intimate poses and at events together. A bundle of text messages included affectionate language and relationship labels. A transcript of a private conversation recorded without the Respondent’s knowledge was relied upon to show how the parties spoke when they thought no one else was listening.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• Affidavit evidence denying de facto status
  The Respondent characterised the arrangement as non-exclusive and denied a shared domestic life. He asserted he dated other women during the same period and that the Applicant knew of it.

• “Separate residences” and “no key” narrative
  He emphasised that the Applicant’s apartment was not his, he did not keep possessions there, and he did not cohabit.

• Generosity as lifestyle rather than commitment
  He admitted wealth and generosity, describing financial support as incentives and as child-focused support rather than as a marker of a couple relationship.

• Corroborative witnesses
  The Respondent called multiple witnesses, including employees, associates, and family members, seeking to portray the relationship as not significant, not exclusive, and not domestically integrated.

Core Dispute Points

1. Was there “living together” in the legal sense without traditional cohabitation?
   The central dispute was not whether they slept together sometimes. It was whether they shared life as a couple on a genuine domestic basis.

2. How should the Court interpret a high-wealth, hotel-based lifestyle?
   The case tested whether luxury and non-traditional living arrangements can still amount to domestic life.

3. What weight should be given to public reputation when one party actively diminishes it?
   The Respondent’s public posture was, on the Applicant’s case, deliberately minimising the relationship. The Court had to decide whether reputation evidence was reliable or manipulated.

4. Credibility and “impression management”
   A defining feature of the case was the Court’s evaluation of which party’s account was more reliable, especially where communications and conduct diverged from self-serving characterisations.

---

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

How affidavits built competing stories from the same facts

In a threshold de facto dispute, affidavits are not just factual summaries. They are narrative machines. Each party selects the same raw events and frames them differently:

• A hotel stay can be framed as:
  • Applicant: a shared home in practice, chosen for lifestyle and work patterns
  • Respondent: a personal preference that does not invite cohabitation
• A transfer of money can be framed as:
  • Applicant: a sustained arrangement of support and dependence consistent with coupledom
  • Respondent: financial incentives, generosity, or child-centred provision
• A holiday can be framed as:
  • Applicant: family life and integration
  • Respondent: travel paid by a wealthy man, not domestic commitment

The boundary between untruths and facts: comparing expressions

A key technique in this case was the Court’s attention to how each party explained inconvenient evidence:

• When affectionate texts were put to the Respondent, he did not simply deny sending them; he attempted to reclassify them as deliberate deception, calling it “future faking”.
• When legal-style letters or emails were put to the Applicant, she explained them as risk-management communications driven by the Respondent’s lawyers, not as a true reflection of relationship status.

The Court’s task was not to punish either party for strategic communications. It was to decide which explanation was consistent with the totality of conduct.

Strategic intent behind procedural directions about affidavits

The Court’s approach reflects a common family law reality: affidavits can be exhaustive and still miss the truth if they merely repeat “my label” rather than “our life”. The Court signalled that it would decide on the evidence and the law, not on self-selected descriptors, and that credibility would be assessed in light of objective material and the overall pattern.

---

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Procedural arrangements before the final determination

Before the final declaration was made, the Court:

• Listed and heard the matter as a threshold determination on jurisdiction to determine financial relief, separating it from the later property and maintenance issues.
• Managed an extended hearing timetable across multiple sittings, including evidence from multiple witnesses, some appearing virtually due to geography.
• Heard and dismissed an application by the Respondent for the trial judge’s disqualification on apprehended bias, then continued with the substantive trial to conclusion.
• Provided directions for costs submissions to be filed after the threshold decision, rather than deciding costs within the reasons.

---

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

Process reconstruction: live restoration of cross-examination dynamics

The hearing unfolded like a collision between two different realities.

The Applicant’s evidence, although emotionally charged and at times agitated under cross-examination, was treated by the Court as generally truthful. The Respondent’s evidence, by contrast, was repeatedly measured against objective markers and found wanting in key respects. The Court noted a pattern: the Respondent often required documents or an agreed chronology to answer rather than drawing from independent recollection. More importantly, the Court observed a deliberate tendency to minimise the relationship through selective framing.

Cross-examination exposed three recurring pressure points:

1. The Respondent’s shifting characterisation
   The Respondent’s position moved between “non-exclusive sexual relationship” and, at times, a suggestion that there was no relationship at all. The Court treated this as a sign of tactical positioning rather than stable truth.

2. The attempt to humiliate as a credibility strategy
   The Respondent relied on sexually explicit material, allegations about drug use, and references to prior partners. The Court’s treatment suggests a judicial awareness that humiliation tactics can distract from, rather than answer, the legal test in s 4AA.

3. The “future faking” explanation
   The Respondent attempted to explain messages about engagement, marriage, and affectionate declarations as lies told to manage risk. The Court treated this explanation as a double-edged sword: even if accepted, it demonstrated the Respondent’s capacity to deceive for prolonged periods, undermining reliability on contested matters.

Core evidence confrontation: the decisive documents and the attack-and-defence around them

Several pieces of evidence operated like hinges:

• The agreed “mud map” of nights together
  The Respondent’s emphasis on the relatively low percentage of nights spent together was designed to defeat the “living together” concept. The Applicant’s response was that “living together” is not reducible to a tally of nights, especially where the Respondent’s lifestyle involved travel and hotels.

• A recorded conversation transcript
  The transcript captured how the parties spoke privately, including partner and family language. The Respondent attempted to recast this as “games” rather than domestic reality. The Court accepted that the relationship was not domestic bliss, but treated volatility as compatible with de facto existence.

• Letters and emails crafted in formal terms
  The Respondent relied on correspondence suggesting he could not commit. The Applicant explained that these were lawyer-driven communications accompanied by verbal reassurances. The Court preferred the Applicant’s explanation and treated the correspondence as impression management.

Judicial reasoning: how the facts drove the result

The legal test required the Court to form an evaluative factual determination using the s 4AA factors, without treating any single factor as mandatory or decisive.

The Court also dealt with a key procedural interruption: the apprehended bias application. That issue mattered because, if accepted, it would derail the hearing. The Court applied orthodox High Court authority and refused disqualification.

“A judge is disqualified if a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide.”

This principle was determinative because it anchored the analysis in an objective standard: not the judge’s subjective intention, and not the litigant’s subjective grievance, but what a fair-minded lay observer would reasonably apprehend in context. The Court then examined the exchange relied upon, considered ordinary judicial practice and case management, and concluded the necessary logical connection was not established.

The substantive reasoning then returned to the real heart of the case: whether the parties shared life as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, taking into account modern relationship forms, unusual living arrangements, and the composite picture.

---

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

Orders and procedural directions

The Court made a declaration pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that a de facto relationship existed between the parties from March 2017 to December 2020.

The Court further ordered that all extant applications, including the Applicant’s application for financial and property orders, be referred to the Case Management Judge for fixing in due course as a defended hearing.

The Court made directions for the filing of costs submissions, with each party to file written submissions within specified timeframes.

---

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

Special Analysis

This case has jurisprudential value because it demonstrates how Australian family law treats modern relationship forms where traditional cohabitation is absent or diluted. It shows the Court refusing to be trapped by an outdated model of domesticity that assumes a single shared home, shared chores, and a neat public presentation. It also shows the Court’s willingness to treat deliberate public minimisation as a factor that can reduce the weight of “reputation and public aspects” evidence, rather than allowing strategic concealment to defeat jurisdiction.

Most importantly, it illustrates the difference between:

• A relationship that is imperfect, volatile, or unequal, and
• A relationship that does not exist for legal purposes.

The Court treated volatility and toxicity as compatible with de facto existence, rejecting the idea that only stable, socially approved partnerships qualify.

Judgment Points

1. A de facto declaration is not discretionary: it is an evaluative factual determination
   The Court treated the declaration under s 90RD as a fact-finding exercise guided by statutory criteria, not an outcome to be granted or withheld as a matter of sympathy.

2. The Court adopted the composite picture approach
   Rather than isolating one factor, the Court assessed how each element “draws its colour” from the others and formed an overall evaluative conclusion.

3. Cohabitation is not an irreducible minimum
   The Court accepted that “living together” can mean sharing life as a couple, not necessarily sharing a single residence in a conventional way. This is pivotal in high-travel, hotel-based, and geographically split relationships.

4. Luxury can be a form of domesticity rather than a barrier to it
   The Court accepted that domestic life can manifest through hotel residence, travel, and outsourced chores, where that is how the couple actually share life.

5. Credibility can decide the case when the statutory factors are contested
   The Court’s preference for the Applicant’s evidence on disputed facts had cascading effects: it shaped the interpretation of texts, property discussions, and the Respondent’s “risk management” communications.

6. Impression management can backfire
   Communications designed to minimise legal risk can be treated as self-serving, especially when contradicted by conduct and private communications.

7. A party’s own explanation for affectionate behaviour can undermine their reliability
   The Respondent’s “future faking” explanation was treated as evidence of capacity to systematically deceive, weakening the Respondent’s claim that the Court should accept his characterisation over the Applicant’s.

8. Public reputation evidence may carry limited weight where one party manipulates public presentation
   The Court treated the Respondent’s pattern of diminishing the relationship publicly as a reason not to place heavy weight on the “public aspects” factor.

Legal Basis

The Court resolved evidentiary contradictions and applied the statutory test by reference to:

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
  • s 4AA (meaning of de facto relationship and relevant circumstances)
  • Pt VIIAB (financial matters for de facto relationships)
  • s 90RD (declarations about existence of de facto relationships)
  • s 90SB (geographic and threshold gateway for financial causes of action involving de facto relationships)
• Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
  • s 140 (civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, taking into account the gravity of allegations)

Comparable authorities emphasised and applied include:

• Fairbairn v Radecki (High Court) on “living together” as sharing life as a couple, not requiring physical cohabitation as a rigid minimum
• Jonah & White (Full Court) on s 4AA factors having no hierarchy and not all being necessary
• Lynam v Director-General of Social Security on the composite picture approach
• Onslow & Onslow on unhappy relationships still being capable of legal recognition as de facto

Evidence Chain

The Court’s conclusion can be broken into an evidence chain that aligns with s 4AA:

1. Duration and continuity
   Evidence established an ongoing relationship and contact from early 2017 to late 2020.

2. Common residence and living together
   The Court found no traditional shared home, but treated the hotel as a quasi-common residence consistent with the parties’ lifestyle.

3. Sexual relationship
   Not disputed.

4. Financial dependence
   Large direct transfers, provision of rent and expenses, and lifestyle funding supported dependence and interdependence even without joint accounts.

5. Property discussions and future planning
   Evidence of property search discussions supported shared life planning even if no purchase occurred.

6. Mutual commitment
   Texts, marriage talk, and private conversation language supported commitment, notwithstanding the Respondent’s attempt to reclassify it as deception.

7. Care and support of the child
   The child’s existence and the Respondent’s financial support for the child strengthened the domestic context, even where parenting time was limited.

8. Reputation and public aspects
   Photographs and public presentation suggested coupledom, but the Court treated this factor cautiously due to the Respondent’s efforts to minimise.

Judicial Original Quotation

“Living together for the purposes of s 4AA(1) will often, perhaps usually, mean cohabitation of some residence by a couple for some period of time. But cohabitation of a residence or residences is not a necessary feature of ‘living together’. … ‘Living together’, consistently with authority, should be construed as meaning sharing life as a couple.”

This statement was determinative because it neutralised the Respondent’s core tactical argument that separate residences and hotel living necessarily defeat de facto status. It allowed the Court to evaluate the parties’ lived reality without forcing it into a conventional housing template.

“Even if what he said was true … the concept of ‘future faking’ demonstrates the respondent’s capacity to systematically deceive and mislead … over a prolonged period.”

This statement was determinative because credibility is the engine that drives fact-finding in a disputed relationship history. Once the Court formed the view that the Respondent could manipulate truth strategically, it became harder for the Respondent to ask the Court to accept his narrow characterisation over the Applicant’s account, especially where objective documents and conduct pointed the other way.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Respondent’s case tended to fail for five interlocking reasons:

1. Over-reliance on a single concept of cohabitation
   The Respondent treated domestic life as requiring a conventional shared home. The Court treated domestic life as capable of modern, lifestyle-driven expression.

2. Self-serving characterisation conflicted with conduct
   Even where the Respondent denied commitment, the objective pattern of travel, funding, and intimate integration cut across a purely casual narrative.

3. The “future faking” defence damaged credibility
   The Respondent’s attempt to explain affectionate and future-oriented communications as deliberate deception invited the Court to treat the Respondent as a strategic narrator rather than a reliable historian.

4. Witness support was compromised by dependence and loyalty
   Several corroborative witnesses were treated as lacking independence due to financial or relational ties to the Respondent, reducing the force of the Respondent’s attempt to build a social-world denial.

5. Impression management was treated as a legal strategy, not as truth
   Formal communications designed to reduce legal exposure were not treated as definitive when the Court accepted the Applicant’s evidence that they were accompanied by contradictory private assurances and inconsistent conduct.

Key to Victory

The Applicant succeeded by building a coherent composite picture that aligned:

• A sustained relationship timeline
• A child and shared parenting context
• Demonstrable financial dependence
• Repeated couple-like travel and social presentation
• Objective communications and private language consistent with partnership
• A credible explanation for formal minimising documents as risk-management rather than reality

In practical terms, the Applicant won the gateway by demonstrating that, even if the relationship was unconventional and volatile, it was still a shared life as a couple in the statutory sense.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

• Fairbairn v Radecki (2022) 400 ALR 613; [2022] HCA 18
  Ratio: “Living together” can mean sharing life as a couple; cohabitation at a single home is not a necessary feature; s 4AA accommodates varied modern relationship forms.

• Jonah & White (2012) FLC 93-552; [2012] FamCAFC 200
  Ratio: No factor in s 4AA has automatic precedence; not all factors must be established; the statutory question remains evaluative and fact-dependent.

• Lynam v Director-General of Social Security (1983) 52 ALR 128
  Ratio: The composite picture approach requires the totality to be assessed; isolating factors and assigning rigid weights risks error; relationships present infinite variations.

---

Implications

Five practical legal implications for everyday people

1. A relationship can be legally real even if it looks messy
   If you share life as a couple, volatility and conflict do not automatically erase legal recognition. The law is not a reward for a perfect relationship; it is a tool for sorting rights and responsibilities.

2. Keep your life evidence, not just your feelings
   Courts decide on documents, patterns, and consistency. Photos, messages, travel records, payments, and third-party evidence can matter more than the labels you used in arguments.

3. If one person controls the money, the other person should understand the risk
   Financial dependence can form part of the de facto picture, but it can also become a vulnerability when support stops suddenly. A clear plan for housing, income, and savings tends to reduce legal risk.

4. Public denial is not always the end of the story
   If someone presents you as “not a partner” in public but treats you like family in private, the Court can look behind the public posture to the lived reality.

5. The gateway question is worth taking seriously
   De facto threshold disputes can decide whether property and maintenance claims even get heard. Treat the threshold as a case within the case, requiring careful evidence preparation.

---

Q&A Session

Q1: If we never lived in the same house, can we still be de facto under Australian family law?

Yes, depending on the overall circumstances. The statutory question is whether you had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis. Courts can treat “living together” as sharing life as a couple, which can be shown through patterns of time, travel, mutual commitment, financial dependence, child care arrangements, and how you functioned as a unit, even across separate residences.

Q2: Does paying money automatically make someone a de facto partner?

No. Money alone is not decisive. Courts look at the purpose and context of financial support. Financial dependence is one statutory factor, but it must fit within the broader composite picture, including commitment, shared life patterns, and domestic integration.

Q3: What kind of evidence is most persuasive in a de facto threshold dispute?

Objective, contemporaneous evidence tends to be powerful: texts, emails, photos, travel bookings, accommodation patterns, bank transfers, rental arrangements, school and childcare records, and credible third-party observations. Courts often treat private communications and consistent conduct as more revealing than self-serving labels used after separation.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

• Case Subtype: De facto Relationships – Threshold Declaration under s 90RD – Non-traditional cohabitation with high-wealth lifestyle and extensive hotel residence
• Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment on the threshold issue of de facto existence, with consequential case management directions for later financial proceedings

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

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

Core Test: Existence of De Facto Relationship under Section 4AA

To evaluate whether a de facto relationship existed, the statutory task is not to tick boxes mechanically. The Court examines all the circumstances and decides whether the parties had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.

Each of the following factors may be considered, and no single factor is necessarily decisive:

1. Duration of the relationship
   • Consider whether the relationship was ongoing and continuous, or intermittent and casual.
   • Look for evidence of sustained contact, recurring shared routines, and an enduring connection across time.
2. Nature and extent of common residence
   • Consider whether the parties shared accommodation and, if so, how regularly and in what form.
   • “Common residence” can include modern arrangements: hotel living, travel-based patterns, and geographically split households, depending on how the parties shared life.
3. Whether a sexual relationship exists
   • A sexual relationship may support coupledom but is not determinative.
   • Consider whether sexual intimacy was coupled with companionship and a shared life, or isolated and transactional.
4. Degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and arrangements for financial support
   • Consider whether one party relied on the other for living expenses, housing, travel, or lifestyle.
   • Consider whether financial arrangements were steady, structured, and consistent with a shared domestic life, even if accounts were not joint.
5. Ownership, use and acquisition of property
   • Consider whether the parties bought property together, planned to, or used property in a way consistent with couple life.
   • Consider evidence of searching for a home, discussing purchases, furnishing a shared space, or decisions about where the family would live.
6. Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life
   • Consider whether the parties planned a future together, presented as a unit, and made decisions reflecting mutual reliance.
   • Look at texts, emails, statements to friends and family, and life planning decisions.
7. Whether the relationship is or was registered under State or Territory law
   • Registration is relevant where it exists, but absence of registration does not preclude a de facto finding.
8. Care and support of children
   • Consider whether the parties had a child, and how they shared parenting and responsibility.
   • Consider financial support, parenting time, decision-making, and how the child was integrated into their shared life.
9. Reputation and public aspects of the relationship
   • Consider how the parties presented to family, friends, workplaces, and the broader community.
   • Be cautious where one party deliberately diminishes public recognition for personal or strategic reasons.

Property Settlement: The Four-Step Process

If de facto status is established and the Court’s jurisdiction is engaged, the property settlement pathway commonly follows an evaluative structure:

1. Identification and Valuation
   • Identify all assets, liabilities, and financial resources.
   • Value them accurately, noting that complex wealth structures can require expert evidence.
2. Assessment of Contributions
   • Financial contributions at commencement, during relationship, and post-separation
   • Non-financial contributions such as renovations, unpaid labour, and support of the other party’s pursuits
   • Contributions to the welfare of the family including homemaking and parenting
3. Adjustment for Future Needs using Section 75(2) Factors
   • Consider age, health, income earning capacity, care of children, and standard of living.
   • Assess whether one party faces a comparatively higher ongoing economic burden.
4. Just and Equitable
   • Conduct a final evaluation of fairness in all the circumstances.
   • Ensure the outcome is coherent with the relationship history and future realities.

Parenting Matters: Section 60CC Framework

Where parenting issues are engaged:

• Primary considerations
  • Benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents
  • Need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, with greater weight given to protection from harm
• Additional considerations
  • Child’s views, depending on maturity
  • Capacity of each parent to provide for the child’s needs
  • Practical difficulty and expense of spending time and communicating

---

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Where statutory avenues are uncertain, or where a party seeks supplementary or alternative pathways, equity and common law doctrines may be relevant. These options are highly fact-specific and tend to carry relatively high risk if relied on without strong evidence.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel

• Clear promise or representation
  • Did one party make a clear assurance about a future benefit such as housing, property ownership, or long-term support?
• Detrimental reliance
  • Did the other party act on that assurance to their detriment, such as quitting work, relocating, caring for a child, or foregoing opportunities?
• Unconscionability
  • Would it be against conscience to allow the promisor to resile from the assurance, given what the other party gave up?

Practical note: In relationship disputes, estoppel arguments tend to be stronger where there is a concrete promise about a specific asset, and weaker where statements are vague, emotional, or inconsistent.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

• Benefit at another’s expense
  • Did one party receive a benefit such as unpaid labour, funded improvements, or contributions to an asset?
• Against conscience to retain
  • Is it unfair, in the circumstances, for the benefited party to keep that benefit without recognising the other party’s interest?

Practical note: Constructive trust arguments can be complex and evidence-heavy. They tend to require a clear connection between the contributions and the asset, or a strong inference of a shared intention.

Procedural Fairness in Related Contexts

Where parallel proceedings exist and decisions are made by courts or decision-makers, procedural fairness principles may be relevant, particularly where a party alleges they were not heard fairly or were met with bias. However, apprehended bias applications tend to carry relatively high risk unless the required logical connection between the impugned matter and feared departure from impartial decision-making is clearly established.

---

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

• De facto financial jurisdiction gateway under Pt VIIAB
  • A de facto relationship must be established and the statutory gateway in s 90SB must be satisfied
  • Where there is a child of the relationship, duration arguments may carry less practical force because the statutory gateway can be satisfied on that basis
• Limitation considerations
  • Post-separation time limits can apply to commencing certain applications, and missing them tends to carry relatively high risk, although extensions can sometimes be sought depending on circumstances

Exceptional Channels

• Less than two years of cohabitation or limited common residence
  • Where there is a child of the relationship, the ability to proceed is often stronger, though the precise gateway requirements remain fact-dependent
• Unusual living arrangements
  • Hotel living, travel-heavy patterns, and split geography do not automatically prevent a de facto finding if the composite picture supports “sharing life as a couple”

Suggestion

Do not abandon a potential claim simply because your relationship did not look “traditional”. Courts assess the composite picture and can recognise modern relationship forms. The higher-risk move is relying on assumptions rather than building evidence.

---

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:

• The meaning of “living together” in s 4AA and the non-necessity of conventional cohabitation
• The composite picture approach in de facto determinations
• The treatment of credibility where one party’s narrative conflicts with objective conduct
• The limited weight of public reputation evidence where a party actively minimises presentation

Citation Method

• As Positive Support
  • When your matter involves modern living arrangements, extensive travel, hotel residence, or separate homes, this authority can support the proposition that “living together” is sharing life as a couple rather than meeting a rigid cohabitation template.
• As a Distinguishing Reference
  • If the opposing party relies on this authority, you may distinguish by emphasising the absence of sustained shared life indicators such as mutual commitment, consistent integration, reliable objective documents, or credible evidence of dependence.

Anonymisation Rule

Do not use the real names of parties. Use procedural titles such as Applicant and Respondent.

---

Conclusion

This judgment shows that Australian family law is designed to recognise lived reality, not just tidy labels. When the evidence reveals a shared life as a couple, the Court can declare a de facto relationship even if the couple did not live under one suburban roof, cook in one kitchen, or present a perfectly consistent public story.

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 (Eide & Yoxall (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 320), 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.