Nguyen v Scheiff

The case of Nguyen v Scheiff involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Nguyen, and the defendant, Scheiff, concerning the existence and nature of their relationship, which the plaintiff claimed was a de facto relationship. The dispute was heard in the Family Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought a declaration that a de facto relationship existed and an order for the distribution of property acquired during the relationship. The defendant denied that such a relationship existed or, if it did, that any common intention had been established regarding the distribution of their property.

The court was required to determine whether the relationship between the parties met the legal criteria for a de facto relationship under the Family Law Act 1975. This involved assessing several factors, including the nature of the relationship, whether there were significant financial contributions by one party, the duration of the relationship, whether the parties were both employed during the relationship, the presence of any children of the relationship, and the non-financial contributions made by either party. Additionally, the court considered whether any contributions were made by the defendant post-separation, whether there was an exclusive occupation by one party of the property in question, and if a common intention had been established to rebut the presumption of equal shares in the property.

The court found that the relationship did meet the criteria for a de facto relationship, as it involved a genuine partnership, with both parties contributing financially and non-financially. The court emphasised the significant financial contributions made by the plaintiff and noted that the defendant's employment by the plaintiff's company constituted a form of non-financial contribution. The court also considered the exclusive occupation of the property by the plaintiff and the absence of post-separation contributions by the defendant. The court concluded that the common intention to share the property equally had been established, thereby rebutting the presumption of equal shares.

The final orders of the court declared that a de facto relationship existed between the parties, and it made orders for the distribution of the property in accordance with the common intention established by the parties.