Allenby and Kimble

In *Allenby & Kimble* [2012] FamCA 614, the Family Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the parties, Mr Kimble and Ms Allenby, were in a de facto relationship. Ms Allenby sought a declaration that their relationship met the statutory criteria for a de facto relationship, while Mr Kimble sought a declaration that it did not. The proceedings were confined to the question of whether a de facto relationship existed and, if so, its duration.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether, having regard to all the circumstances of their relationship, Mr Kimble and Ms Allenby had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis, as defined by section 4AA(1)(c) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved considering various factors, including the duration of their cohabitation, their financial arrangements, their social interactions, and their individual perceptions of the relationship. The court also had to determine if the relationship met the minimum duration requirement of two years and if it ended after 1 March 2009, to establish jurisdiction for property settlement orders.

Murphy J found that a de facto relationship did exist between the parties. Despite Mr Kimble's contentions that the relationship was one of convenience and that they lived separately for significant periods, the court found that they had shared a common residence for a substantial portion of their ten-year relationship, including from mid-2004 until September 2007 and again from October 2007 until April 2009. The court rejected Mr Kimble's evidence regarding separate bedrooms, finding that they shared the master bedroom. Furthermore, the court noted that while finances were not pooled and property was not jointly owned, the parties attended family events together, travelled together, and engaged in sexual relations throughout much of their relationship. The court also found that Ms Allenby's answers on Commonwealth benefit forms, which did not declare a de facto relationship, were given to obtain a benefit and were therefore treated with circumspection.

The court declared that a de facto relationship existed between the applicant and the respondent, that the total period of the de facto relationship was at least two years, and that the de facto relationship ended after 1 March 2009. The matter was adjourned for directions to progress the case to a final hearing.