JACOB & LAWRENCE

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Jacob against Mr Lawrence concerning their relationship. Ms Jacob sought declarations that she and Mr Lawrence had lived together in a de facto relationship for at least two years, or alternatively, that she had made substantial contributions to the relationship and that a failure to make property orders would result in serious injustice. Mr Lawrence sought the dismissal of Ms Jacob's application for want of jurisdiction.

The court was required to determine two primary issues. First, whether the parties had commenced a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis by 14 October 2009, which would satisfy the two-year duration requirement for a de facto relationship. Second, if the two-year period was not established, the court had to determine whether Ms Jacob had made substantial contributions of the kind specified in section 90SM(4) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and whether a failure to make the sought orders would result in serious injustice to her.

In reaching its decision, the court applied the definition of a de facto relationship under section 4AA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which requires parties to be living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, considering various circumstances including the duration of the relationship, common residence, sexual relationship, financial dependence, property ownership, and degree of mutual commitment. The court found that while the parties commenced a sexual relationship in September 2009 and had some occasional overnight stays at each other's homes, they did not have a common residence or significant financial interdependence by 14 October 2009. The court preferred the respondent's evidence, finding the applicant's evidence to be dramatic and tailored to her sense of injustice.

Consequently, the court was not satisfied that the parties had lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis for the requisite two-year period. As the alternative grounds for jurisdiction also relied on establishing substantial contributions and serious injustice, and given the court's findings regarding the nature of the relationship in late 2009, the court dismissed Ms Jacob's amended application and all extant applications.