A $158,000 pool, his illness and her sole care: 54/46

The couple married overseas in 2001, moved to Perth in 2004 and separated in mid-2015. Their two children lived with the mother. Both had tertiary qualifications. From about 2010 the husband worked full time, earning about $90,000 a year, while the wife, after the children were born, worked part time and then casually. After separation he pleaded guilty to assaulting her and to breaching a violence restraining order.

What they owned was modest. The unit, in his sole name, was worth $400,000 against loans of $346,270, leaving $53,730 of equity. With cars, savings and super, the pool was $157,942. Since separation the wife had paid the mortgage and met the children's costs, receiving only the minimum child support. Shortly after separation the husband drew $25,000 from the home loan and gave no documents to explain it.

He first sought a sale and 60% for himself, and at trial asked for 85% of an undefined pool. But he filed no trial material and chose not to cross-examine the wife, leaving the case effectively undefended. Justice Moncrieff assessed contributions at about 55/45 in the wife's favour, because she alone had preserved the main asset and cared for the children since separation.

Looking ahead, the husband's failure to disclose weighed in her favour. That was offset, at least in part, by his medical condition, a permanent limit on his ability to work; he was on a disability benefit. The orders the wife sought, keeping the unit and taking over the mortgage, gave her $85,333 and him $72,609, both including super: 54% and 46%. Having regard to the contributions and future needs findings, the judge found those orders just and equitable, and authorised a Registrar to sign the transfer, thinking it highly unlikely the husband would.