How does the Court deal with short relationships?

The Family Law Act does not define how long a marriage, or a de facto relationship has to be for it to be considered a short-term or a long-term relationship. However, in the 2010 matter of Lane & Wharton, the primary judge commented that, in 2007 the median duration of an unsuccessful marriage to the date of separation was 8.9 years. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2021, the median duration of marriage to separation was 8.4 years. These figures are helpful to understand the median length of a marriage, however this duration does not include the period of the time the parties may have been living together prior to marriage.  The duration of a de facto relationship will generally be from the time the parties commenced cohabitation until the date of separation.

In the absence of a definition of a ‘short relationship’, we could consider that a short relationship would be one that is at least of less duration than the median length of a marriage.

Notwithstanding the duration of the relationship, the same principles apply for a property settlement, that is, the court will only make an order to alter a party’s property interest if it is satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so in the circumstances. Generally, in longer term relationships, this requirement is easier to satisfy. 

If the court is not satisfied that it is just and equitable to alter property interests, then, it may be that the property of the parties remains as it was prior to the commencement of the relationship i.e each party keeps what they brought into the relationship.  If the court is satisfied that, in the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make orders dividing the property of the parties, then the court will consider the financial and non-financial contributions ; these include the direct and indirect contributions by or on behalf of a party to the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of any property) of the parties during the relationship, it also includes any post-separation contributions and, as each party’s respective future needs. 

When there is a short relationship, the Court is likely to closely examine the financial contributions each party brought into the relationship. By way of example, in the 2016 matter of Rose & Mitchell the parties lived together for approximately 3 years and had one child together. They had a modest asset pool, with the main asset being the former matrimonial home. That property was bought “wholly by the husband”. The judge found that the husband made 90% of the contributions to the parties’ asset pool and the wife 10% of the contributions. The wife was then awarded a 15% adjustment on account of her future needs as she had the primary care of the parties’ child. Overall, the property pool was divided 75% to the husband and 25% to the wife.

In longer relationships the initial contributions are usually not as closely scrutinised.

It is important to remember that family law is discretionary and will be determined in accordance with the specific facts of each case.

If this article has triggered concerns for you about your current relationship and how it will be viewed by the Court please contact Solari and Stock on 8525 2700, or click here to request an appointment with one of our experienced Family Law Team.    

Did you know you can start your enquiry online securely via our Settify link? Click on the ‘Get Started Online’ button on the Family Law page to start the process now.

Article written by Kirstin Attard and Riccarda Stock
Photo by Külli Kittus on Unsplash