Crick & Bennett

The appeal before the court involved a dispute regarding a declaration of a de facto relationship under section 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The appellant contested the primary judge's decision, asserting that the evidence presented did not support the finding that the parties were in a de facto relationship. The appellant also argued that the primary judge's reasons were inadequate and that the phrase "presented as a couple" was an impermissible gloss on the analysis under section 4AA of the Act. The appeal was brought to the court without the need for leave, as declarations under section 90RD are considered final orders.

The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the primary judge's findings were supported by the evidence, and if the reasons provided were sufficient. The court needed to determine if the primary judge had erred in preferring one party's evidence over the other, and whether the phrase "presented as a couple" added an impermissible gloss to the analysis. Additionally, the court had to assess whether any factual errors made by the primary judge were material and whether the finding of a de facto relationship was against the weight of the evidence.

The court found that no appealable error was established in the primary judge's decision. The court concluded that the primary judge's findings were open on the evidence, and that the reasons provided were adequate. The phrase "presented as a couple" did not add an impermissible gloss to the analysis, and any factual errors made by the primary judge were not material. The court determined that the finding of a de facto relationship was not against the weight of the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, excluding the costs of the application to adduce further evidence. The form of the order was subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.