Is it a de facto relationship?

Last year I wrote an article on the concept of 'living apart together'. In that article I touched on the case of Sinclair and Whittaker [2013] where the Full Court said that "the ultimate decision as to whether there is a de facto relationship at any given time is a matter for the Court and not a matter for the parties". I had cause to consider the facts of that particular case recently and they caught my attention.

The parties began dating in late 2002. In August 2004 the respondent's flatmate vacated their flat and the appellant moved some personal belongings in. The appellant began to contribute $600 each month towards the respondent's rent.

In December 2005 the parties purchased a unit with the appellant providing the deposit and paying the stamp duty. The unit was put in the name of a corporate entity wholly controlled by the appellant with a 70% interest to the corporation and 30% to the respondent. The respondent and the corporate entity jointly borrowed monies from the appellant's business which was a mortgage provider.

The respondent described herself as single on forms to do with the purchase when an available option was de facto. The parties each contributed $15,000 to a fund which was used for the purchase of furniture and accessories for the apartment and they shopped for those items together.

The appellant stayed at the unit on average three nights per week but left at 4:15 AM each morning to commence work from his own premises.

The parties spent many weeks each year away together and enjoyed time with the respondent's family in Queensland between 2 to 4 times per year.

The respondent described herself as single and not in a de facto relationship on documents provided to the ATO.

On 21 December 2006 the appellant gave the respondent a 2.17 carat diamond ring which was found to have been described by the appellant as a promise ring.

The relationship broke down on 21 September 2010.

The appellant claimed to have had relations with other women during the period of the relationship however the appellants driver gave evidence that was inconsistent with this statement.

Thoughts?

The trial judge concluded, based on those facts, that the parties had been in a de facto relationship. On appeal the Full Court was satisfied that that decision was open to the trial Judge on the facts before him and no error in His Honour's reasoning was identified.