Delamarre & Asprey

The appeal involved the appellant challenging the declaration made by the trial judge under section 90RD(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that a de facto relationship existed between himself and the respondent during certain periods. The dispute was heard in the Family Court of Australia and the appeal was subsequently heard by the Full Court. The appellant contested the accuracy of the dates specified in the declaration and argued that the trial judge had erred in including these dates. The Full Court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had correctly identified all relevant factors in defining the de facto relationship and whether there was any procedural error in the inclusion of the dates in the declaration.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had correctly applied the definition of "de facto relationship" as outlined in section 4AA of the Family Law Act, and if the inclusion of specific dates in the declaration was necessary or permissible under section 90RD(1). The Full Court reviewed the trial judge's consideration of the statutory criteria for a de facto relationship and assessed the necessity and appropriateness of the dates in the declaration. The court also needed to decide if any error in the declaration affected the validity of the overall finding of the de facto relationship.

The Full Court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant provisions in defining a de facto relationship and there was no error in the finding itself. However, the court identified that the trial judge had erred in recording the commencement date for the de facto relationship as the date when the parties first met, rather than when the relationship began to satisfy the statutory criteria. The Full Court clarified that under section 90RD(1), it was not necessary for the dates of the relationship to be included in the declaration. Consequently, the Full Court amended the declaration by deleting the specified dates and found no other error in the trial judge's decision. The appeal was allowed in part to correct the declaration, but the rest of the order was upheld.

The final orders made by the Full Court were to allow the appeal only to the extent necessary to delete the specified dates from the declaration, dismiss the appeal in all other respects, and make no order as to costs in relation to the appeal.