Piovene & Muhlfeld (No 3)

The case of Piovene & Muhlfeld (No 3) involved a dispute between Mr Piovene and Ms Muhlfeld over whether they were in a de facto relationship between 2010 and 2023. The applicant claimed they were in a de facto relationship for approximately 12 years, which broke down in October 2022. The respondent, however, maintained that they were merely friends and that no de facto relationship existed. The case was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 1.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant and respondent were in a de facto relationship under section 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This required the court to consider the relevant circumstances of the relationship, including duration, nature, and extent of their common residence, financial dependence, and other factors listed in section 4AA(2) of the Act. The court had to determine if the evidence supported the existence of a de facto relationship between the parties.

The court found that the evidence did not support a finding that the parties were in a de facto relationship. The respondent's evidence was accepted over the applicant's, particularly in relation to the use of the Suburb T apartment and the extent of their sexual relationship. The court also considered the applicant's failure to attend the respondent’s father’s funeral and his contradictory statements in previous proceedings. The court concluded that the evidence did not support a finding of a de facto relationship, and thus, made a declaration that such a relationship never existed.

The court's decision was based on a detailed assessment of the evidence presented by both parties. The court found the respondent’s account more credible and consistent with the circumstances, and ultimately determined that the applicant's claim for a de facto relationship was not substantiated. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of assessing all relevant circumstances in determining the existence of a de facto relationship under the Family Law Act.