De Facto Relationship Property Disputes and Court Jurisdiction

When court applications are allowed

Parties need to take care when commencing an application to court. The critical question is whether the parties fall within the provisions of the family law legislation. These provisions must be met before a court can make any order.

Requirements for de facto property claims

A judge can only make an order in a de facto relationship if certain conditions exist. These include:

• The de facto relationship lasted at least 2 years, or
• The parties have a child together

The case of Beaumont & Schultes

In Beaumont & Schultes [2019] FCCA 1831, the parties lived together in a de facto relationship for less than 2 years. They also had no children.

The court had to decide whether it had jurisdiction to make a property order in these circumstances.

Key legal issues for the court

The court examined several issues to determine jurisdiction:

• The court had to determine the exact start and end dates of the relationship.
• The applicant argued the relationship began when the sexual relationship started. The judge rejected this argument. The court focused on cohabitation instead.
• The court considered whether the applicant made substantial financial or non-financial contributions to assets.
• The court also considered whether refusing an order would cause serious injustice.

Findings about contributions

The court made findings about the applicant’s contributions:

• The applicant contributed to food, entertainment, and electricity costs. The court did not treat these as substantial contributions.
• The applicant arranged for family and friends to renovate the first property. The court gave this little weight, as the workers were paid.
• The court did not treat the children’s work as an indirect financial contribution from the applicant.
• The applicant also worked on renovations to a second property while caring for children and studying. The court accepted the work occurred but rejected the $90,000 valuation. The court did not accept a monetary value for that effort.

Outcome of the case

The court reached the following conclusions:

• The de facto relationship did not meet the 2-year requirement.
• The applicant’s contributions were acknowledged but were not substantial enough for a property order.
• The court found no serious injustice if no order was made.
• The applicant’s financial position at the start and end of the relationship was similar.
• The renovations only increased property value slightly.

The court dismissed the application.