Event and Time
Event Description
The case involves a legal dispute concerning whether the parties, Ms. Thornhill (the applicant) and Mr. Sandison (the respondent), were in a de facto relationship. The applicant asserts that they were in a de facto relationship from April 2, 2013, to December 26, 2015, during which time they had a child together. The respondent denies the existence of a de facto relationship, claiming their relationship was purely casual and did not involve shared residence or mutual commitment.
Application and Claims
- Applicant’s Claims: The applicant claims that they lived together as a couple and that a de facto relationship existed. She argues that their mutual decision to have a child supports her claims.
- Respondent’s Claims: The respondent disputes the existence of a de facto relationship, emphasizing that they only had a casual sexual relationship and did not cohabit or share a domestic life.
Judicial Decisions
Justice Henderson dismissed the applicant’s claims, declaring that no de facto relationship existed between the parties, primarily based on inconsistencies in the applicant’s testimony and evidence that contradicted claims made in previous legal proceedings.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
Applicant’s Arguments:
- The parties were cohabitants in a de facto relationship from 2013 to 2015.
- They mutually decided to have a child and took part in family events, indicating a committed relationship.
- Financial support and sharing of a living space corroborate the claims of residential sharing.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The parties never shared a residence and maintained separate households.
- Any support given was for the benefit of their child (X), not indicative of a de facto relationship.
- The applicant's prior affidavits and statements to Centrelink denied the existence of a de facto relationship.