Tribunal cannot decide who keeps the dog after a de facto break-up, so the appeal is dismissed (ACAT, 2026)

What happened

The applicant and the respondent were in a de facto relationship from the second half of 2022 until January 2026, about three and a half years. A de facto relationship is a couple living together in a marriage-like relationship without being married. It was agreed they had lived together in that way for at least three years.

In October 2023, about a year into the relationship, the applicant bought a male Dachshund for $2,150. Both of them loved the dog, and the material sometimes described him as the applicant's "son". The relationship ended in January 2026, apparently on bad terms, and the dog was living with the respondent.

In March 2026 the applicant lodged a civil dispute application with the tribunal about "goods", namely the dog. He asked for the dog to be returned to him. On 5 May 2026 the tribunal dismissed his application. It found it lacked jurisdiction, which means the legal power to hear and decide the dispute. The applicant appealed. On 1 July 2026 the tribunal directed that the appeal would be heard as a new application. That meant the question of jurisdiction would be looked at again from the start and, if needed, the dispute would then be decided on its merits.

What each side wanted

The applicant argued that this was a simple civil claim for the return of goods he solely owned, and that the dog's purchase price was well within the tribunal's money limit for civil matters. He made detailed arguments that the Family Law Act did not exclude the tribunal's general powers. He argued that deciding who has custody of the dog was not really a "distribution" of property. He also argued it did not matter that no family law property case had been started, and that it would be absurd to require a court case about a single item. The respondent argued that the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the claim was the kind of proceeding that only the courts named in the Family Law Act can deal with. She also said that, whoever paid for the dog, she should be declared his owner from now on.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal ordered on 31 July 2026 that the appeal be dismissed. It found that the original decision was correct and that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide who owns the dog.

The tribunal also ordered that the names of the parties, and any other details capable of identifying them, are not to be published. Written reasons were given later, on 15 September 2026.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The tribunal relied on section 39A of the Family Law Act 1975. Under that section, a "de facto financial cause" may be brought in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory or a court of summary jurisdiction of a participating jurisdiction. Subsection 39A(5) says such a case must not be brought other than under that Act. Section 4 defines a de facto financial cause to include proceedings between former de facto partners about the distribution of the property of both of them or either of them after the relationship breaks down. "Distribute" includes conferring rights or obligations in relation to property. The tribunal rejected the applicant's argument about the word "distribute". Family law cases very often involve one party claiming that a particular item should go to them alone, sometimes because they say they are its legal owner. If his argument were right, those provisions would lose much of their effect.

The tribunal accepted the applicant's point that subsection 90RC(2) has a narrow effect. It only shuts out State or Territory laws that deal expressly with financial matters arising from the breakdown of de facto relationships, and the general ACAT Act is not that kind of law. But that did not help him. Subsection 90RC(3) lets State or Territory laws apply only where the family law courts cannot make orders because of sections 90SB, 90SD or 90SK. None of those applied here. The relationship lasted more than two years, and the residence requirements were met because both parties lived in the ACT. The tribunal also could not find any law prescribed by regulation under subsection 90RC(5), and neither party suggested the ACAT Act was one.

The tribunal found that the applicant was really seeking a declaration that he owned the dog, of the kind covered by section 90SL. It found the respondent was seeking an order altering ownership, of the kind covered by section 90SM. It held that pets are property for these purposes, referring to Davenport v Davenport (No 2) [2020] FCCA 2766. It also noted that 2024 amendments added specific rules for a "companion animal", meaning an animal kept mainly for companionship. Under subsection 90SM(6), the court may only order that one party have ownership, that the animal be transferred to another person who consents, or that it be sold. The tribunal concluded that only the courts named in section 39A can make orders about companion animals in de facto relationships covered by the Act.

Finally, the tribunal held that it does not matter that neither party had started family law proceedings, because the bar in subsection 39A(5) applies regardless. It acknowledged there was some logic in the applicant's argument that this outcome seemed absurd. It said, however, that the law avoids former partners running many separate cases in different courts and tribunals over different items. Separate cases could lead to contradictory findings, and could put family disputes before bodies without the family law courts' expertise.

What this means if you are in a similar position

This decision shows that, when a couple who were in a de facto relationship covered by the Family Law Act separate, a dispute over who keeps a pet is treated as a property dispute under that Act. That is so even if one person paid for the animal and the dispute is about a single item worth only a modest amount. The tribunal found it had no power to hear such a claim as an ordinary civil dispute about goods. It also found that this was the case whether or not any family law proceedings had already been started.

The decision also shows how the law now treats a companion animal. Under the provisions the tribunal described, the court can only give ownership to one person, order a transfer to someone who consents, or order a sale. The tribunal noted that an earlier case found a dog could not be the subject of a shared custody order.

If you are in a similar position, it may help to know that the tribunal looked closely at whether the relationship met the Family Law Act definition, including how long it lasted and where the parties lived. Those facts decided which body had the power to hear the dispute. In disputes of this kind, people commonly first set out their position to the other person in writing. If the matter is not resolved, the next step is usually an application to a court that the Family Law Act gives power to hear the dispute, such as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a ACAT application. More decisions: ACAT cases and other civil disputes.

Source: SEBASTIAN v MICHELLE (Appeal) [2026] ACAT 55 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.