VALDES & STYLES

In the matter of *Valdes & Styles*, Rees J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for the determination of the existence of a de facto relationship. The applicant sought to establish that she and the respondent had been in a de facto relationship for a number of years. The respondent, who was over 90 years old and suffered from significant hearing and vision impairment, was not available for cross-examination, leading to an application to apply section 63 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) to his evidence due to the impracticality of overcoming his inability to attend.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant and respondent had been in a de facto relationship as defined by section 4AA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the court to determine if they were a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis, considering factors such as the duration and nature of their relationship, whether they shared a common residence, the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, the ownership, use and acquisition of property, the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life, and the reputation, and all other relevant circumstances.

Rees J found that despite a romantic relationship existing for a number of years and the respondent providing gifts and money to the applicant, there was no evidence of a mutual commitment to a shared life. Crucially, the parties at no time shared a common residence. Evidence from various witnesses, including the applicant's own daughter and hospital records, consistently referred to the respondent as the applicant's "girlfriend" or "partner," with one isolated instance of a medical certificate referring to him as "husband" being explained by the doctor's lack of awareness of the relationship's nature. The applicant herself described herself as "girlfriend" on a case conference form. Consequently, the court concluded that it was not established that the applicant and respondent had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.

Accordingly, the court declared that no de facto relationship existed between the applicant and the respondent and ordered that the applicant's Amended Initiating Application be dismissed.