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
Read 5 star ★★★★★