He was her carer, she had an injury payout, he gambled: 57.5/42.5

Their de facto relationship began in September 2002, when she and their first child moved to the country town where he lived. They had two children and separated in January 2016. She had been seriously injured in an accident and was a disability pensioner. From August 2002 he was formally her carer for social security purposes, and he received a carer's allowance until they separated. He was self-employed and worked on and off.

He brought in a block he had bought in 1992, with a house he had largely built himself that was still a shell, and half of a vacant block that sold in 2006 for more than $400,000. He netted about $150,000 and used most of it to repay a loan from his brother. In 2006 she received a damages payment of about $157,000 net. Part of it went into the home and a small industrial block.

The net pool at trial was $417,000. Each sought 65% of it. She argued that his gambling losses of about $116,000 since 2015 should be added back. Chief Judge Thackray refused: the couple had kept their money largely separate, and the gambling was most likely funded from his income, mainly after separation. Instead, the waste counted against him when contributions were weighed. Neither side's legal fees were added back.

Contributions were assessed at 57.5% to him and 42.5% to her. The judge gave particular weight to his two properties, while not overlooking her damages payment. Part of that payment was an allowance for him as her carer. He was also the household's mainstay, cooking most evening meals and caring for the children, who now lived with him. Her poor financial prospects and his full responsibility for the children cancelled each other out, so there was no further adjustment.

She was to receive $69,025 from him within 90 days, plus the proceeds of the industrial block: about $177,000 in all, leaving him about $240,000. He kept both houses, provided he paid; if he did not, the family home would be sold.