Kazama & Britton

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Kazama for a declaration under s 90RD of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) that she and Mr Britton were in a de facto relationship. The primary dispute concerned the commencement date of this relationship, with Ms Kazama asserting it began on 9 November 2002 and Mr Britton belatedly contending it commenced in 2006. Both parties maintained separate residences throughout the period in question, with Ms Kazama’s case being that they spent significant time together at Mr Britton’s residence.

The court was required to determine whether a de facto relationship existed between the parties and, if so, from what date. This involved assessing the evidence presented by both parties, particularly in light of conflicting statements made by Mr Britton to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship regarding the nature and duration of his relationship with Ms Kazama. The court also had to consider the principles outlined in *Nelson v Nelson* (1995) 184 CLR 538 in its determination.

Justice Watts accepted Ms Kazama’s version of events regarding the commencement of the de facto relationship, finding it to be more credible than Mr Britton’s. This acceptance was significantly influenced by documentary evidence, including a Form 40SP signed by Mr Britton in 2006, which contained statements about the commencement of their relationship and his intention for Ms Kazama to live with him, contradicting his later assertions. Notes from an interview with a Departmental officer in 2008 also provided details of the relationship that aligned more closely with Ms Kazama’s account. The court found that Mr Britton’s evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, particularly in light of the penalties associated with providing false information to the Department of Immigration.

Pursuant to s 90RD(2)(a) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the court declared that a de facto relationship existed between Ms Kazama and Mr Britton from 9 November 2002 to 9 September 2009. The court reserved costs for the hearing and made various orders regarding the exchange of financial statements, attendance at a financial conference, and potential future hearings, indicating that the matter would be adjourned for further mentions and potentially a hearing if unresolved.