The Courts view on the Breakdown of a De Facto Relationship

by Marc Testart, Principal | Sept 22, 2026 | Last reviewed Jun 12, 2026

The Breakdown of a De Facto Relationship

The breakdown of a de facto relationship is an important aspect of family law that needs careful consideration. A recent decision by the High Court of Australia in Fairbairn v Radecki ((2022) FLC 94 083; [2022] HCA 18. 11 May 2022) has shed light on this issue. While the Family Law Act 1975 does not offer a precise definition of “breakdown” in relation to de facto relationships, this case emphasizes its significance, particularly regarding property orders for such relationships.

Case Background: Fairbairn v Radecki

In this case, the parties had entered a de facto relationship with an unconventional financial arrangement. Despite living together in one party’s property. They maintained separate finances and investments. Eventually one party was diagnosed with dementia and her capacity to make long term decisions was severely impaired. As a result, a trustee was appointed to make decisions on her behalf. Including moving her into an aged care facility. In 2019, the trustee believed that the de facto relationship had broken down and initiated legal proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for property settlement orders under s90SM.

Key Legal Issue: Has the Relationship Ceased?

The main issue before the Court was whether the relationship had genuinely ceased. The appellant argued that it broke down when they no longer lived together. As stated in section 4AA(1)(c) of the Family Law Act. However, the High Court disagreed with this interpretation and stressed the importance of considering real world circumstances and avoiding potential injustices towards individuals living apart due to health reasons. This decision by the High Court provides valuable guidance on how courts should approach defining “breakdown” in de facto relationships and highlights the need for fairness when determining such matters. The High Court has allowed the appeal with respect, concluding that considering all relevant circumstances surrounding their situation there was a definitive breakdown in the de facto relationship between both parties by May 25th, 2018. Factors such as occupying separate rooms and one party residing in an aged care facility were taken into account during deliberation; however, it is essential to recognize that these factors alone did not determine this outcome entirely. The key element leading to this ending was identified as the respondents’ actions where he behaved as if he were no longer obliged by their agreement concerning keeping assets separate.

Implications and Legal Precedent

This precedent setting decision provides vital clarification on defining “breakdown” within de facto relationships; underscoring a critical need for thorough assessment of varied circumstances and interactions between involved parties when determining cessation of a de facto relationship. Should you require further assistance or information regarding de facto relationships and family law matters please do not hesitate to reach out. We have a team of experienced lawyers available to guide and support you throughout the complexities of family law matters ensuring protection of your rights and interests.

Contact Us

Call Us

Address

Level 3, 489 Toorak Road, Toorak VIC 3142

Open Hours - By Appointment

Mon - Fri: 9am - 5pm
Sat - Sun: Closed 

Written by Marc Testart

Principal, Testart Family Lawyers,
Level 3, 489 Toorak Road, Toorak VIC 3142.

Marc Testart was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of Victoria in 2003 and has practised in family law since 2008. He signed the roll of counsel at the Victorian Bar in 2008 and practised as a barrister until 2013, when he founded Testart Family Lawyers. He holds a Bachelor of Laws with first class honours from the University of Melbourne and was a tutor in law at Ormond College. He has appeared as counsel at trial and on appeal in family law proceedings, including as counsel for the successful applicant in Sare & Rainey [2020] FamCA 207, in which the Family Court of Australia permitted a mother to relocate her two young children to Japan. He acts in relocation matters, including urgent applications for recovery orders and applications to restrain the removal of children from Australia.