Eden & Eden

The matter before the court involved the Applicant, who was seeking a property settlement from the Respondent. The central issue was whether the parties had resumed their de facto relationship after a period of separation. The Applicant claimed that the relationship resumed in October 2008 and continued until December 2013, while the Respondent argued that the parties lived together under the same roof from October 2008 until the sale of the property in December 2012 but did not resume their de facto relationship. The court had to determine the factual position based on the parties' testimonies and any relevant documentary evidence.

The court examined the testimonies of both parties and noted that neither party called any supporting witnesses. The Applicant testified that she did not intend to immediately resume a de facto relationship due to a loss of trust in the Respondent. She detailed that from October 2008 until their separation in December 2013, she cooked for the Respondent and the children, did his washing, and made his bed when he slept in the front bedroom. She further stated that after about two weeks, the Respondent resumed sleeping in their old bedroom, and their relationship gradually improved. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that though they lived under the same roof, they did not resume their de facto relationship but lived separately and apart until the property sale in December 2012.

The court deliberated on the testimonies and concluded that the Applicant's account of the resumption of the de facto relationship was more credible. The evidence of the Applicant was supported by the documentary proof of child support payments from the Respondent to the Applicant from August 2008 until March 2014. The court found that the Applicant's testimony was consistent with the child support payments and the Respondent's actions, such as moving back into the family home and gradually resuming intimacy. Therefore, the court held that the parties resumed their de facto relationship in October 2008 and continued until December 2013.

The court ordered that the parties' de facto relationship was resumed in October 2008 and continued until December 2013. The Applicant was granted a property settlement based on this finding.