G v O

[2022] WASCA 23

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Family Law
2. › De facto relationships
3. › Whether parties in de facto relationship
4. › Marriage-like relationship
5. › Role of common intention
6. › Whether subjective belief of one party relevant
7. › Whether common intention must be objectively manifested in conduct
8. › Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 13A
1. Family Law
2. › De facto relationships
3. › Property settlement
4. › Jurisdictional prerequisite
5. › Whether relationship of required quality established
6. › Family Court Act 1997 (WA), s 205ZG
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of fact based on credibility
4. › Whether appellate court should interfere
5. › Incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony
6. › Glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences
1. Family Law
2. › Costs
3. › Indemnity costs
4. › Whether primary judge erred in exercise of discretion
5. › Conduct of litigant
6. › Imprudent refusal of settlement offer
7. › Family Court Act 1997 (WA), s 237

Quick Take

A subjective belief or intention held by one party as to whether their relationship is marriage-like is not relevant to the determination of a de facto relationship under s 13A of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA); what is required is the parties' common intention as to an enduring union, which must be objectively manifested in their conduct. Even a mutually held subjective intention to an enduring union that fails to manifest itself in the parties' conduct will not establish a marriage-like relationship. An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's adverse credibility findings in de facto relationship proceedings unless those findings are demonstrated to be wrong by incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony, or are glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences.