top of page

De Facto Relationships

Writer's picture: Peter VilaysackPeter Vilaysack

The case of Chin v Boa [2025] FedCFamCIA 9, delivered on February 4, 2025, by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, addresses the complexities in assessing and determining whether a de facto relationship exists.


For family lawyers including anyone considering asset protection issues, particularly, from a family law context, the case underscores the importance to be aware of the legal frameworks that the Courts will undertake to assess whether individuals are living together on a genuine domestic basis.


The primary judge's findings were as follows:


Key Findings:


  1. Duration and Cohabitation: The parties did not cohabit for a sufficient period to establish a de facto relationship. While they lived together intermittently, the total duration was less than the two years.


  2. Financial Interdependence: There was no significant financial interdependence between the parties. They maintained separate financial accounts and did not share financial responsibilities.


  3. Public Perception: The relationship was not publicly recognised as a de facto partnership. The parties did not present themselves as a couple in social or public settings.


  4. Mutual Commitment: There was insufficient evidence of mutual commitment to a shared life. The parties did not make joint decisions regarding significant aspects of their lives, such as living arrangements or future plans, indicating a lack of the mutual commitment characteristic of a de facto relationship.


The appeal against the primary judge’s findings was dismissed and the primary judge’s decision was upheld that the parties were not living together in a de facto relationship. The importance of the Courts to correctly identify and apply the legal framework (i.e. “correctness” standards) to assess a relationship set out in the legislation and relevant principles was upheld and correctly applied by the primary judge.


Conclusion:


Based on these findings, the Court concluded that the parties were not in a de facto relationship. The absence of key elements such as cohabitation, financial interdependence, public recognition, and mutual commitment led to this determination.




 
 
 

© 2023 PV Legal Pty Ltd

Liability limited by a Scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

    bottom of page