DANIHER & GARLETT

This matter concerned an application for property settlement brought by the applicant against the respondent. The parties had a relationship of approximately 13 years, during which they had two children. The applicant asserted that they were in a de facto relationship for a significant portion of this time, while the respondent's position was that the de facto relationship had broken down earlier than the applicant contended. The case was heard by Judge Terry.

The central legal issue before the court was to determine the date of the breakdown of the de facto relationship, which was crucial for assessing the applicant's claim for property settlement. This required the court to consider various factors indicative of a de facto relationship, including the duration of the relationship, the nature and extent of their common residence, the existence of a sexual relationship, and the degree of financial dependence or interdependence. The court also had to resolve conflicting evidence presented by the parties regarding their living arrangements and the cessation of their sexual relationship.

Judge Terry's reasoning focused on the evidence presented regarding the parties' living arrangements. The applicant claimed they shared a common residence until March 2011, but her previous statements to the Family Court and Centrelink suggested they had separate living quarters from February 2008. The court found the respondent's evidence, corroborated by a third party, more credible on this point, inclining the judge to believe the relationship had broken down in early 2008. While acknowledging that a common residence is not essential for a de facto relationship, the evidence regarding separate living quarters, coupled with the applicant's assertions to Centrelink about not sleeping together after February 2008, weighed heavily against the applicant's claim of a continuing de facto relationship until March 2011. The court also noted the parties' efforts to separate their financial affairs in 2008 and 2009.

The application for property settlement was dismissed.