Married in 1986, together again in 2009: 62.5% to her
- Together
- About 3 years, de facto
- Children
- None under 18
- Net pool
- About $439,000
- Split
- 62.5% her / 37.5% him
They married in April 1986 and separated within months; they divorced in 1988. Each went on to other relationships. In 2009, after her second marriage ended, she moved her belongings from interstate to his home in Western Australia and they lived together again, this time as de facto partners. The relationship lasted about three years and ended in 2012.
He owned the home, worth $423,333 at trial, and ran a transport business carrying heavy debts. She worked in paid jobs, later fly-in fly-out, paid many of the household bills and some of his mortgage, and helped in his business without pay. She also put in money from her earlier property settlement. Her taxable income over the relationship was about $114,000 against his $31,500, though the judge found his real income was significantly higher. After they separated, her father gave her a half share in a property; her share was worth $94,000.
The net pool, counting super, was $439,032. The court could not split super in a WA de facto case at the time, but it could count super as a notional asset. She had asked for $90,000 and then less. He conceded only $15,000 to $20,000 and asked for $169,400 for about 2,200 hours spent on the case, a claim Justice Walters called preposterous.
The judge said no property is quarantined. His house was a substantial early contribution, and her father's gift a late one, credited to her in full. Weighing everything, contributions were 60% to 65% for her; without the gift, the judge said, about 50% to 55%. The future factors favoured neither side; the judge found he could earn at least as much as she did. The result was 62.5% to her and 37.5% to him.
As she already held $236,440, he was ordered to pay her $37,950 within 120 days. The judge said the case should have been settled by negotiation.
What it means for you
Owning the house does not decide a short de facto case on its own. Money a partner puts into bills, the mortgage and the business counts, and a gift received after separation can still be credited to the person who received it.
Since 28 September 2022 a court can split superannuation between Western Australian de facto partners, under Part VIIIC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This case was decided before then: the super was counted in the pool, but each partner kept their own. Western Australia has not adopted the 10 June 2025 federal property changes for de facto couples, so WA de facto property is still decided under the same provisions of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).
The decision: [2015] FCWA 114
A published decision of the Family Court of Western Australia, retold in plain English. MKI Legal did not act in this case. Every outcome depends on its own facts. This is general information, not legal advice.
Talk to a family lawyer about your property split
Call us on (08) 9470 2777, or read how consent orders make an agreed property split binding.
More wa de facto couples case studies
He was her carer, she had an injury payout, he gambled: 57.5/42.5
57.5% to him, 42.5% to herShe lived on a disability pension and received a damages payout. He was her registered carer, built the family home and lost about $116,000 gambling since 2015. She wanted the losses added back.
[2018] FCWA 187
She kept the house and paid him nothing; he kept $521,000 in super
She kept the home; he kept his super and businessHe brought in most of the money and had $520,972 in super. The law then could not split a de facto couple's super in WA, so the court balanced it another way.
[2018] FCWA 239
Nearly seven years, two homes, and no de facto relationship
Claim dismissed: not a de facto relationshipThey were a couple, on and off, for nearly seven years, holidayed together and helped care for each other's children. He said that made them de facto partners. The court disagreed.
[2021] FCWA 121