Section 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) defines a de facto relationship as a relationship between two people who are not married to each other, not related by family, and are living together on a genuine domestic basis. Increasingly such relationships are on the rise in our society with many people favouring them over a traditional marriage. But just like with marriage de facto relationships are still impacted by the law and when it comes to family law and de facto relationships there are certain legal considerations to take into account.

For instance when determining if two people are in a de facto relationship, the Court considers several key factors, including:

1. Duration of the relationship.
2. Living arrangements and whether they shared a common residence.
3. Nature and extent of their shared life (including financial arrangements, property sharing, and interdependence).
4. Existence of a sexual relationship.
5. Mutual commitment to a shared life.
6. Social recognition of the relationship.
7. Care and support of Children.

The Court emphasises that no specific factor, such as a common residence, is determinative of a de facto relationship, but rather all circumstances together must substantiate it.

Cizek & Mihov De Facto Relationship Case (2024)

The recent case of Cizek & Mihov highlights the challenges of proving a de facto relationship, especially when the boundaries of commitment and cohabitation are ambiguous.

Ms Cizek claimed that they were in a de facto relationship over some 12 years covering two discrete periods, being:

1. from 2011 until late July 2013; and
2. from July 2014 until late July 2023.

As a de factor, Ms Cizek had a claim on Mr Mihov’s assets (who was by the way considerably wealthy).  Mr Mihov denied there had been any de facto relationship between them and conversely sought a declaration to that effect.

The primary issues in this case focused on:

1. Lack of Mutual Commitment
   Although the parties had known each other for over a decade, the court found that Ms Cizek failed to demonstrate a mutual commitment to a shared life. While shared finances and some appearances as a couple were present, the court emphasised that mere financial arrangements without a true commitment to life together did not satisfy the definition of a de facto relationship.
2. Separate Residences and Limited Cohabitation
   The parties did not reside together or spend consistent, prolonged periods in each other’s company. Ms Cizek’s romantic relationships with persons other than Mr Mihov throughout their relationship pointed to a lack of living together on a genuine domestic basis.
3. Contradictions in Evidence
   Each party’s involvement in romantic relationships with others, and no significant intermingling of assets or financial dependency questioned the legitimacy of the relationship being de factor. Further, Ms Cizek’s continued receipt of Centrelink benefits, which are restricted to individuals not in de facto relationships, contributed to questions about the relationship’s legitimacy.
4. Court’s Decision on Appeal
   The primary judge’s conclusions were upheld on appeal. The Court examined the significance of the commitment as opposed to shared residence and determined that the assessment was balanced and that there was no error in the approach taken by the primary judge. The appeal was dismissed, and Ms Cizek was ordered to pay party/party costs fixed at $30,000. Not an outcome she was hoping for!

The Court was satisfied that Mr Mihov was committed to building and sharing a life with Ms Cizek. However, the Court was not satisfied that Ms Cizek had established, on the balance of probabilities, that she shared that commitment. There was minimal, if any, degree of mutual commitment to the same shared life. Accordingly, the Court was satisfied that there was no “meeting of the minds”, and the parties were in fact committed to different relationships.

Key Takeaways For De Facto Relationships in Australia

The Cizek & Mihov case clearly demonstrates that proving a de facto relationship in Australia requires more than just superficial ties or a lengthy association. True commitment to a shared life, underpinned by consistent cohabitation and financial interdependence, is essential. This case highlights the importance of reliable evidence and a genuine commitment to life together, particularly where claims for financial adjustments and legal recognition are involved.

By understanding the nuances of this decision, individuals can better assess their situation and the requirements for proving a de facto relationship.

To learn more about de factor relationships and the law in Australia and how it might impact you or a loved one Contact Shan Lawyers, the family law experts in Bayside and wider Melbourne. We are here to cater to your family law needs so speak to us for legal advice.