Zau v Uongh

Ms Zau, the applicant, sought financial orders against Mr Uong, the respondent, based on the premise of a de facto relationship. The applicant also sought parenting orders concerning the parties' child, W, aiming to vary existing orders made in 2005. The court was required to determine two principal issues: whether the applicant and respondent were in a de facto relationship, and whether there had been a sufficient change in circumstances since 2005 to warrant a review of the parenting orders.

The court's reasoning regarding the de facto relationship centred on the definition in section 4AA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which requires parties to have lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. After examining the evidence, including the applicant's and respondent's affidavits and various documents, the court found no evidence that the parties had lived together in a common abode, nor that they had a genuine domestic basis for their relationship. The court noted that while the parties had a long and complex history, including a sexual and emotional connection that led to the conception of their child, this did not establish a de facto relationship as defined by the Act. The court specifically found that the parties had not lived together as a couple, there was no genuine domestic basis for their relationship, and they had not lived in a de facto relationship on or after 1 March 2009.

Regarding the parenting orders, the court found that there had been a sufficient change in circumstances since 2005 to warrant re-examining the child's future time with the applicant. Despite the applicant's difficulties in presenting her case and the court's finding that she had not established a de facto relationship, the court acknowledged that the child's living arrangements had changed significantly since the 2005 orders, including periods of living with the applicant in China. The court therefore adjourned the parenting orders for a final hearing. The court also dismissed the financial orders for want of jurisdiction due to the absence of a de facto relationship.