Establishing a De Facto Relationship - Case Study

A recent and noteworthy case from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), Chin & Bao FedCFamC1A 9, delivered on February 4, 2025 , provides further clarity on the crucial issue of de facto relationships in family law property disputes. While the appeal in this matter encompassed various aspects of family law, a central point of contention was whether the parties had been in a de facto relationship. The fact that this issue still remains the subject of appeals in early 2025 indicates its ongoing relevance and differing interpretations of a de facto relationship.

Background

At the heart of the Chin & Bao case was a dispute over the nature of the relationship between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant asserted that they had been in a de facto relationship for a period exceeding three years. In contrast, the respondent maintained that their connection was characterised by a personal relationship that eventually transitioned into friendship and a business partnership, explicitly denying the existence of a de facto relationship as legally defined by the Act.

After careful consideration of the evidence presented by both parties, the primary judge sided with the respondent. The trial judge made several key findings about the relationship based on the evidence presented:

1. The parties had no common residence;

2. There was no sexual relationship beyond mid-2014;

3. There was no financial dependence or interdependence;

4. Although there was property acquired, the acquisition was more like a joint venture rather than showing commitment to a shared life;

5. There was no mutual commitment to a shared life.

Accordingly, the court determined that the appellant had not adequately demonstrated that their relationship met the legal threshold to be classified as a de facto relationship, thus dismissing the appellant's application for property adjustment under Section 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The contrasting accounts provided by the appellant and the respondent underscored the often subjective nature of interpersonal connections.

Issues On Appeal

The appellant, dissatisfied with the primary judge's decision, raised several key legal issues on appeal . These grounds of appeal collectively highlighted the appellant's contention that the primary judge's entire assessment of the relationship was flawed, encompassing both the legal interpretation and the factual findings based on the presented evidence.

Ultimately, the appeal was unsuccessful and was dismissed by the appellate court. The appellate court upheld the primary judge's finding that the appellant had failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that a de facto relationship existed as defined by the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court's affirmation of the primary judge's assessment, particularly regarding credibility and the evaluation of evidence, underscores the principle of appellate deference to the factual findings made by the trial court. Primary judges have the distinct advantage of directly observing witnesses as they give their testimony, allowing them to form impressions of credibility that are not readily available to appellate courts that rely solely on written transcripts. The dismissal of the appeal also reinforces the significant legal burden that rests on the party asserting the existence of a de facto relationship, especially when the other party actively disputes it. The appellant was required to present compelling evidence that clearly demonstrated the key characteristics of a de facto relationship as outlined in the legislation, and in this instance, the courts at both levels found that this evidentiary threshold had not been met.  

The Chin & Bao case offers several crucial takeaways for both family law practitioners and individuals navigating relationship breakdowns. Firstly, it unequivocally highlights the paramount importance of adducing sufficient and persuasive evidence to successfully establish the existence of a de facto relationship, particularly when seeking property adjustment under Section 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) .

This evidence should comprehensively address various aspects of the relationship, including the degree of financial interdependence, the nature and extent of any shared living arrangements, the social aspects of the couple's interactions, and the presence of a mutual commitment to a shared life. Secondly, the case underscores that the credibility of the parties and any witnesses who provide testimony is a critical factor in the court's assessment. Individuals must present honest and consistent accounts of their relationship, and legal practitioners should ensure their clients are thoroughly prepared for the process of giving evidence in court. Thirdly, the decision reinforces the principle that appellate courts generally afford significant weight to the factual findings of primary judges and are typically reluctant to overturn those findings unless there is a clear and demonstrable error in the primary judge's evaluation of the evidence .

This emphasises the importance of the initial hearing and the need for parties to present their strongest possible case at that stage. For legal practitioners advising clients who believe they were in a de facto relationship, this case serves as a reminder to meticulously gather and document all relevant aspects of the relationship. This includes financial records, shared leases or property ownership documents, communication records, photographs, and witness statements from individuals who observed the relationship. Managing client expectations about the potential difficulties in proving a de facto relationship, especially when it is contested, is also crucial. For individuals who consider themselves to be in a de facto relationship, particularly if their relationship does not conform to traditional societal norms or marriage-like structures, this case highlights the importance of being aware of the legal definition and proactively gathering any evidence that could support a future claim.

In conclusion, the case of Chin & Bao FedCFamC1A 9 serves as a significant reminder of the complexities inherent in defining and proving a de facto relationship within the Australian legal framework. The decision emphasises that establishing such a relationship for the purposes of property adjustment requires compelling evidence that satisfies the specific legal criteria outlined in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The courts will meticulously scrutinise the presented evidence and place considerable weight on the credibility of the individuals involved. Ultimately, this case underscores the critical importance for anyone facing a relationship breakdown or who is uncertain about their legal standing to seek timely and comprehensive legal advice to fully understand their rights and obligations within the context of Australian family law.