Caughey & Peckham (No 2)

In Caughey & Peckham (No 2), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) was tasked with determining the legal characterisation of the relationship between Ms Caughey and Mr Peckham, specifically whether it qualified as a de facto relationship under the relevant statute. The primary dispute was over the timeline of their relationship, the periods of cohabitation, and whether substantial contributions were made by Ms Caughey. The court had to ascertain when the parties began living together, whether they lived together for two years, and if the relationship was characterised as a de facto relationship from a particular date. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there were any separations during their cohabitation and how those periods should be treated. If the relationship was less than two years, the court had to consider if Ms Caughey made substantial contributions, and whether denying her property adjustment proceedings would cause serious injustice.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence, to establish a timeline of the relationship's evolution. It found that while the applicant claimed the relationship began in early 2016, the respondent agreed only that it began in mid-2017. The court weighed various factors, such as the applicant's change of address with the Australian Electoral Commission and her registration of Mr Peckham as her partner for a conference, against other evidence that suggested a later start date. The court concluded that despite the applicant's assertions, the relationship did not qualify as a de facto relationship until mid-2017. The court found that the relationship had broken down as of 4 January 2019, as evidenced by the lack of mutual commitment, sexual relationship, common residence, or socializing as a couple. The court did not need to determine whether Ms Caughey made substantial contributions because the relationship duration was less than two years, thus falling outside the statutory requirement.

The court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of the evidence and the statutory definition of a de facto relationship. It relied heavily on contemporaneous records and communications between the parties, finding them more reliable than the sometimes conflicting testimonies of the parties and their children. The court concluded that the de facto relationship had indeed existed but did not meet the statutory duration requirement of two years. As a result, the court did not need to address whether Ms Caughey made substantial contributions or whether denying her property adjustment proceedings would cause serious injustice. The court directed that the matter be listed for further case management to address property adjustment issues.