OAKLEY and ROCHE

In the case of Oakley v Roche, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the appellant, Mr Oakley, had established that he and the respondent, Ms Roche, were in a de facto relationship for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Court was required to consider whether the relationship between the two parties satisfied the criteria for a de facto relationship, specifically focusing on the requirement of a shared financial relationship.

The key legal issue before the Court was whether a shared financial relationship, as one of the criteria for a de facto relationship, needed to be "substantial" in nature. The Court had to assess whether the financial contributions and arrangements between Mr Oakley and Ms Roche were sufficient to meet the threshold of being "substantial," as implied by the Full Court's decision in Murphy v Murphy and O’Farrell v O’Farrell. The Court also had to consider whether the shared financial relationship was a requirement at the time the relationship commenced or whether it needed to be ongoing throughout the entire relationship.

The Full Court found that a shared financial relationship is not necessarily required to be "substantial" to satisfy the de facto relationship criteria. The Court emphasised that each case must be assessed on its own facts, and the term "substantial" should not be interpreted to mean that the financial contributions must be of a certain quantum. Instead, the focus should be on whether there is a genuine sharing of financial responsibilities and resources. The Court concluded that the relationship between Mr Oakley and Ms Roche satisfied the requirements of a de facto relationship, and thus, Mr Oakley was entitled to a property settlement.