Taisha v Peng

In *Taisha v Peng*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Taisha for a declaration that she was in a de facto relationship with Ms Peng for approximately 17 years, from 1993 until October 2010. Such a declaration was sought to enable the court to make orders regarding a property dispute between the parties. Ms Peng denied the existence of a de facto relationship, asserting their association was akin to that of a mother and daughter. The court was required to determine whether Ms Taisha had discharged the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that a de facto relationship existed between herself and Ms Peng.

The court's determination hinged on the interpretation and application of section 4AA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which defines a de facto relationship. This definition requires that the parties are not legally married to each other, are not related by family, and, having regard to all the circumstances, have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis. The court noted that while the applicant bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities, section 4AA(4) grants the court discretion to have regard to such matters and attach such weight as it deems appropriate. However, the court emphasised that this discretion does not ameliorate the fundamental requirement for the applicant to prove the jurisdictional fact of a de facto relationship. The court also considered the meaning of "couple" and "living together on a genuine domestic basis," referencing previous case law that stressed the importance of viewing the relationship as a composite picture rather than isolating individual factors.

The court found that Ms Taisha failed to establish the existence of a de facto relationship on the balance of probabilities. While acknowledging that the parties lived together for an extended period and that there were instances of shared accommodation, the court was not satisfied that the evidence demonstrated they were a "couple living together on a genuine domestic basis." The court noted significant discrepancies in the parties' evidence regarding the nature of their relationship, particularly concerning intimacy and the overall domestic arrangements. The evidence presented by Ms Peng and her family, including her husband and adult children, was found to be more precise and certain, casting doubt on Ms Taisha's assertions. The court concluded that the evidence did not support the claim that the parties had merged their lives to the extent required to constitute a de facto relationship.

Consequently, the application for a declaration of a de facto relationship and the associated property dispute claim were dismissed. The court also made orders regarding costs, requiring any party seeking costs to file written submissions by a specified date, with a further period for responses.