By and -

Key decisions

  • Fairbairn v Radecki [2022] HCA 18
  • Mayhew & Fairweather [2022] FedCFamC1A 53
  • Wickham & Toledano [2022] FedCFamC1F 32
  • Kartal & Templeman [2022] FedCFamC1A 46


De facto thresholds – ‘breakdown’ of a de facto relationship is the trigger point for jurisdiction – aggregate of circumstances supported conclusion that relationship had broken down

In Fairbairn v Radecki [2022] HCA 18 (11 May 2022) the High Court (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ) heard an appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia.

The New South Wales Trustee & Guardian (‘Trustee’) as case guardian for the de facto wife sought orders for sale of a home to pay for the wife’s care accommodation. The de facto husband argued the Court lacked jurisdiction as the parties had not separated.

While the trial judge agreed; the Full Court found that decision contained error as it imputed an intention to separate rather than assessing indicia.

The High Court held (from [29]):

‘A de facto relationship will have broken down when, having regard to all the circumstances, the parties no longer “have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis”. …

[30] … It is the “breakdown” or “end” of a de facto relationship that is the trigger point for the … Court to be seized of jurisdiction to make a property settlement order … It would make no sense for … jurisdiction to arise before a de facto relationship had ended …

[33]  … [C]ohabitation of a residence … is not a necessary feature of “living together”. … Two people … may not reside in the same residence, but nonetheless be in a de facto relationship …

[34] The fact that here the appellant was placed into an aged care facility may be relevant to the existence or breakdown of a de facto relationship … but it could not … be determinative of that issue. …

[46] Whilst there had been a degree of mutual commitment to a shared life, that commitment ceased when the respondent refused to make the “necessary or desirable adjustments” in support of the appellant and … acted contrary to her needs. …

[47] In aggregate, these circumstances support the conclusion that there had been a breakdown in the parties’ de facto relationship …’

The appeal was allowed, with the appeal to the Full Court dismissed.


You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more