His aunt and uncle gave him the land. She was still awarded 44.5%

Mr and Ms Soames married in 1992 and were together for 21 years. They had two sons. Before the wedding, his aunt and uncle had given him a vacant block, valued at $65,000 for stamp duty, and he had started building a house on it with money from an earlier sale and a $70,000 mortgage. They moved in in 1992, and it was the family home from then on. Theirs was a traditional marriage: he earned most of the income and managed the money, and she was the main homemaker and parent and also worked.

He later inherited his aunt and uncle's neighbouring property. Part of it was sold in 2010 for net proceeds of $672,166, and about $300,000 went into renovating the home and clearing the loans on it. They separated in late 2013 and she moved out early in 2014. He stayed in the home.

After separation he received over $850,000 from his mother's estate, a redundancy and the sale of the rest of the inherited land. Justice Tyson found he had not given full and frank disclosure, and had spent at least $292,000 for his own benefit.

It was agreed he would keep the home if he paid her out; the fight was over how much. She asked for 40% and he offered 25%. The pool was $2,006,898, including the home at $980,000 and his super of about $724,000. His land, his inheritance and his care of the sons after separation made his contributions greater: 65% to him and 35% to her. But she was 16 years younger, with a longer working life ahead and less income than he received from all his sources, and he had spent large sums after separation that she never had. The judge moved 9.5% to her.

The result was 55.5% to him and 44.5% to her. Under the orders the judge proposed, he was to keep the home and his super, and had two months to pay her $684,313. Until he paid, he could not borrow against the home or mortgage it further without her consent or a court order.