She kept the house and paid him nothing; he kept $521,000 in super

They met in 2003 and moved in together before their first child was born in 2005. They had three children. In 2012 they held a ceremony overseas, but never married in a way recognised in Australia, so the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) applied. They separated in June 2015, and she stayed in the home with the children.

He brought in much more: about 80% of the capital they started with. He had about $330,000 from a house sale, savings, shares, a car and about $231,000 in super. Her equity in an interstate property was about $100,000. He later put an inheritance and a small damages payment into the family. She was the homemaker and parent throughout, while he worked very long hours.

By the trial they owned a home worth $680,000 with a $115,356 loan, and had about $76,500 in joint accounts. They also owed $70,326 to a relative whose inheritance they had held. His half share in a shop business was valued at $222,831. His super came to $520,972 and hers to $51,520.

Both agreed she should keep the home. He wanted her to pay him $290,000 as well; she wanted him to clear the mortgage from his super. The law then did not allow super to be split between WA de facto partners, and the court could not order him to draw on it. Justice O'Brien assessed contributions at 65% to him and 35% to her, mainly because of his larger starting capital and inheritance. But the future factors favoured her. His earning capacity was much greater, she had the primary care of the children, and the judge took into account that he would keep all of his super.

So she kept the home and its loan, and what was left in the joint accounts once the relative had been repaid $70,326 from their savings. No payment was ordered either way. He kept his business share, his own accounts and all of his super; she kept her own super. Her claim for ongoing maintenance was dismissed.