He could keep the country home, if he paid her $234,454 in 60 days

Ms Bailey and Mr Bell were together for about 20 years and married in 1995. They had two children. He was a tradesman who also worked fly-in fly-out, at times up to 100 hours a week, and made the greater financial contributions. She worked in administration, apart from breaks after the births, and was the main carer and homemaker. In 2000 they bought land in a WA country town and built the family home.

They separated in February 2013. For a while they took turns living in the house week about, so that the children could stay put. In 2014 she moved out and rented. He stayed on, paid interest-only repayments, rates and insurance, and maintained the house.

At trial she asked for 67.5% of everything if he wanted to keep the house. He asked for an equal split and to keep it. He represented himself, and his disclosure was inadequate: asked for documents, he often replied that "it's all in the bank statements". Justice Duncanson found the property worth $455,428 including super: the house at $550,000 less a $198,000 mortgage, plus vehicles, a small business, other small items and two super funds.

Contributions were assessed as equal. He had worked very hard, and after separation he had met the outgoings on the home; she had been the main carer and had kept working. The judge then moved 10% to her, mainly because of his non-disclosure and his greater earning capacity. Her gross income was about $35,000 a year. The result was 60% to her ($273,257) and 40% to him ($182,171).

He was given the chance to keep the home, as he wanted. Under the orders the judge proposed, he had 60 days to refinance the loan into his own name and pay her $234,454. If he did not pay, the house was to go on the market and the proceeds would be divided so that she still received 60% overall.