Defining de-facto relationships

Have you had the need to define a de-facto relationship?
No?
We have.
It is not as easy as it sounds, particularly if one party is adamant that there never was a de-facto relationship.
Is intention of the parties something the Act should have taken into account? Probably not as we suspect a lot of people would then rely on the intention factor to try and get out of the relationship.
Apparently living together is an important factor to consider in determining if a de-facto relationship existed and yet celebrity marriages where one party lives in one country and the other in another come to mind immediately.
Then there is the degree of interdependence. What exactly that means is not defined. One assumes that what is meant is the interconnectedness financially and emotionally. Again it is not unusual for married couples to keep separated bank accounts during their marriage and take separate holidays and so on.
Of course we must not forget that the existence of a sexual relationship is important in deciding if a de-facto relationship existed. Apparently it does not have to be an exclusive sexual relationship either, which we assume means that you can have other sexual partners and still be deemed to be in a relationship with someone (not sure who).
There are other factors to take into account as well, but we will let you read those yourself.
What we have learnt is that some relationship simply cannot be defined, at least not by the person in the relationship.
As far as we can see all this means that there is still a reason to get married, at least if you want to have certainty with respect to the type of relationship you are in.
A useful judgement to read is that of Cronin J which you can find at this link:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2012/385.html