What’s a de-facto relationship in a dependency claim?

A de facto relationship in the case of a dependency claim

In the case of Perry v Killmeir & Anor, the Court of Appeal considered what constituted a de facto relationship in the case of a dependency claim.

Mr Perry’s partner was fatally injured in a motor vehicle accident in June 2007.

Mr Perry and his deceased partner had been residing together however had separate bank accounts and finances.

A Lack Of Commitment

The Court at first instance also considered that Mr Perry appeared to have little involvement with the children of his deceased partner.

He seemed to be unaware of what the children did, and there was an attitude of “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours” in the relationship, also indicating a lack of commitment.

The Court also considered that the decision to put off their marriage until they first purchased a house, also indicated a lack of commitment to the relationship.

Decide the essential elements of a de facto partnership

The Court of Appeal had to decide the essential elements of a de facto partnership.

Also whether Mr Perry could recover dependency damages as a result of a less than traditional relationship.

The Acts Interpretation Act

In making their decision, the Court had to consider the provisions of s32DA of the Acts Interpretation Act.

The act sets out numerous indicators of whether or not a couple were, as at the date of the death, living together as a couple “on a genuine domestic basis”.

Primary judge failed to give proper regard to all demonstrated elements

The Court of Appeal determined that the “primary judge failed to give proper regard to all demonstrated elements of a true domestic relationship”.

Justice Muir said in the lead judgement that “it is correct that the couple were in no hurry to pool resources… but the deceased and the appellant were of mature age and used to their independence.

Marriage was postponed not the continuance of the de facto relationship

The appellant had the needs of his mother to consider and the deceased had three children…. What was being postponed was marriage not the continuance of the de facto relationship.”.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered that dependency damages assessed by the trial judge at $281,000, be paid by the CTP insurer, Suncorp.

Read More At: Perry v Killmier & Anor [2014] QCA 064 Muir and Gotterson JJA and Applegarth J 04/04/2014

 Claims Have Time Limits

✔  There is only a small window in which you can make compensation claims in Queensland

✔  Even if you think your actions may have contributed to your injury, you may still have a claim well-worth pursuing

✔  Just press the button below, there is no cost, and no obligation to review your case

Real 5 star client Google reviews

✔  Read 5 star ★★★★★ real reviews from those we have helped

✔  No fake reviews here, we just work hard for great clients who leave honest feedback.

No win no fee guaranteed

✔  You’ve nothing to lose with our no win no fee guarantee, if we don’t win, you don’t pay our professional fees

✔  Our guarantee quickly pays for all outlays and associated claim expenses.

How much compensation will I get?

✔  Our Compensation Calculator gives a basic indication how much compensation payout you may be due

✔  Simple steps to get a fast overview of all the areas that you may claim for

TPD claim lawyers Brisbane,
Gold Coast & Australia wide

As long established personal injury lawyers, we can help with Queensland motor vehicle accident claims, WorkCover compensation claims and many more claim services. We also offer Australia wide support to help you with your TPD super claim. Try our fast, free TPD compensation payout checker below.