Gay lovers in property dispute were 'friends with benefits' and NOT a de facto couple... despite living together for seven years in an open relationship, court rules

  • Decision in the Federal Circuit Court ruled two men 'friends with benefits'
  • A 53-year-old man met a 41-year-old at a sex on premises venue in 2005
  • They lived together and had a sexual relationship for seven years
  • A judge rejected the applicant's claim to part of the other man's property
  • Lawyer Nicholas Stewart said the landmark ruling had implications for both gay and straight relationships

Nicholas Stewart from Dowson Turco Lawyers acted on behalf of a client who successfully argued he was in a 'friends with benefits' relationship

Nicholas Stewart from Dowson Turco Lawyers acted on behalf of a client who successfully argued he was in a 'friends with benefits' relationship

A Brisbane judge ruled that two men in an open relationship for seven years were technically 'friends with benefits' and not in a de facto relationship in a landmark decision in the Federal Circuit Court.

A 53-year-old man met a 41-year-old man at a sex on premises venue in March 2005, after ending a heterosexual relationship with his wife with whom he shared children.

The pair, who cannot be named, commenced a relationship and moved in together almost immediately, and lived together on and off for the next seven years while also having a sexual relationship.

In a decision handed down last week, Judge John Coker rejected the 41-year-old applicant's claim he was entitled to a 40 percent share of the 53-year-old's property, based on what he called their 'de facto' status, the Courier-Mail reported.

Lawyer Nicholas Stewart, who works for LGBTI specialist law firm Dowson Turco, acted on behalf of the 53-year-old and said his client argued that their relationship was that of a 'landlord' and a 'tenant'.

'He came to us and said "De facto is not how I view this relationship - yeah we had sex and we had sex a lot but I never shared any commitment or romantic notions",' Mr Stewart told Daily Mail Australia.

'He had many other sexual partners throughout their friendship so there was no exclusive commitment.'

One of the 53-year-old's alternative sexual partners gave evidence during the hearing in June.

Mr Stewart said the judge agreed with his client that the men's relationship was one of 'friends with benefits' based on its non-exclusive nature.

Mr Stewart added that it was a landmark decision that had implications for both gay and straight relationships.

'It doesn't change the law but it sets up a set of facts with a view to differentiate relationships from that as de facto,' he said.

'It's a modern age and people are shacking up but not necessarily with a view to an exclusive life together or any kind of shared commitment.

A Brisbane judge ruled that two men in an open relationship for seven years were not in a de facto relationship in a landmark decision in the Federal Circuit Court (pictured)

A Brisbane judge ruled that two men in an open relationship for seven years were not in a de facto relationship in a landmark decision in the Federal Circuit Court (pictured)

'They're having sex and might love each other but they might have multiple partners.'

Mr Stewart said the 41-year-old applicant argued they were 'de facto' based on the fact that the pair lived together and shared important events like Christmas together.

'It was really important to tell the court gay men don't always have families around them to go to events like Christmas, and just because they do that doesn't mean they are boyfriends,' he said.

'And if you think about a middle aged man where all he's know is a straight life to then realise he's gay and go to a sex on premises venue, it's pretty overwhelming.

'He wanted to enjoy the fruits of being liberated but then found out he hooked up with the wrong person.'

 

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now