ALTHOUGH AUSTRALIAN COURTS HAD TRADITIONALLY REFUSED TO ENFORCE CONTRACTS IN THE EVENT THAT THE LITIGANTS WERE LIVING IN EXTRAMARITAL AND QUASI-MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS, THE MODERN COURT HAS EXTENDED PROTECTION TO BATTERED WOMEN WHO ARE NOT WIVES. THE COURTS HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED TO ALTER THEIR DECISIONS PARTLY BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN LEGISLATION, BUT JUDICIAL OPINIONS HAVE ALSO GIVEN APPROPRIATE WEIGHT TO CHANGING PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND TO THE POLICIES WHICH THE LAWS ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE. THE HOUSE OF LORDS, IN THE IMPORTANT 1978 CASE OF DAVIS V. JOHNSON, INTERPRETED THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS ACT OF 1976 TO CONFER UPON UNMARRIED WOMEN A RIGHT OF PROTECTION FROM ABUSE SIMILAR TO THE RIGHT AFFORDED TO MARRIED WOMEN. UNDER THE LAW, COURTS COULD SUSPEND OR RESTRICT THE RIGHTS OF A WOMAN'S PARTNER IN ORDER TO PRESERVE HER RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY IN THEIR HOME AND TO PROTECT THE WOMAN AND HER CHILDREN. EVEN WOMEN WITHOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE COMMON DWELLING COULD BE GRANTED A LIMITED RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY AND OF EXCLUSION OF THE OTHER PARTY WHO OWNED THE DWELLING. THESE LEGAL RIGHTS ARE LIMITED AND BASED ON A STATUTORY LICENSE. PARTY TO THE RELATIONSHIP IS DEEMED TO GRANT THE OTHER PARTY A LICENSE TO OCCUPY THE HOME EVEN IF ONLY ONE PARTY POSSESSES AN INDEPENDENT PROPERTY RIGHT. LEGAL DOCTRINES INVOLVED IN THE DAVIS CASE ARE DISCUSSED. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)