Ten years, two children, less than they started with: 60/40 proposed

They moved in together in October 2007 and separated in January 2017. She owned two properties when they met; her assets after mortgages, counting $30,000 of super, came to about $520,000. He owned a property and a temporary dwelling; his came to about $332,800. She stopped work when she became pregnant, and they had two children. She was the main carer and he, a self-employed tradesman, was the main earner. He renovated her properties and raised their value.

In 2014 they sold up and bought a farm as the family home, using $355,650 from her house, a $400,000 loan and $200,000 of savings. Money troubles followed. A boat he had bought for $120,000 was sold for $80,000. By the trial their net property was $237,500, far less than they had started with.

Both represented themselves. He asked for an equal split and she asked for 70%. Justice Duncanson found their very different contributions during the relationship were equal. Her larger starting assets, and her paying the mortgage on her own since October 2017, tipped contributions to 55% for her and 45% for him.

Her super of $80,375 could not be split under the Family Court Act 1997 (WA), so it was treated as a financial resource she would keep. He was seven years younger, with greater earning capacity. The judge gave her a further 5%, smaller than it would have been had she not kept her super. He had questioned about $42,500 she withdrew over three years, but his suspicions were not made out.

The judge proposed 60% to her and 40% to him: $142,500 and $95,000. He could keep the farm if, within 60 days, he refinanced and paid her $144,000; if not, it would be sold. The judge listed a further hearing to hear from the parties before making the orders.