21/02/2024
A recent case from the WA Supreme Court emphasises that the presence of a de facto relationship is defined not just by adherence to the statutory rules, but by the circumstances of each relationship.
In this appeal from a 2022 ruling, the Court of Appeal considered whether the trial judge had made a mistake in labelling the relationship between Ms Keremestevski and Mr McLeod was that of boyfriend and girlfriend and not 'marriage-like', a determination which resulted in Ms Keremestevski's application for further provision from Mr McLeod's estate being rejected at first instance.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, as the evidence provided by Ms Keremestevski suggested a deeper level of commitment and financial interdependence - in that Ms Keremestevski provided Mr McLeod with financial assistance for his day-to-day expenses - in addition to an ongoing sexual relationship and shared living arrangements, even though the couple owned separate properties and didn't share the expenses associated with the properties. In fact, the Court of Appeal determined that ownership of property or shared expenses isn't necessary for a relationship to be considered 'marriage-like'.
Much of the trial judge's decision to characterise the relationship as boyfriend and girlfriend, rather than marriage-like, hinged on evidence from Mr McLeod's friends and family asserting that the two were rarely seen together in social settings during their relationship. However, the Court of Appeal took a difference view; Mr McLeod was an introvert, and while it was true that Ms Keremestevski and Mr McLeod didn't frequently socialize as a couple, this was largely due to Mr. McLeod's lack of social activity overall. However, during Mr. McLeod's illness, particularly when he needed assistance, they regularly appeared together in public, indicating a significant aspect of their relationship.
(Cont. in comments)
