He said he owed $440,000, mostly to family. The court left it out

Mr Dyer and Ms Kaeser began living together in 2004 and had three children, who live with her. She works part-time as a public servant. He had worked as a tradesman. Their main asset was a house in Queensland worth $820,000, with a mortgage of about $317,000.

Mr Dyer said he owed large debts to his family: $267,000 to his brother, $123,000 to his father (including $100,000 in unpaid wages) and a $50,000 loan from another lender. With those debts counted, he put the pool at about $111,000. Ms Kaeser said the debts did not exist and put it at about $523,000.

Judge Young did not find Mr Dyer a reliable witness. He had claimed a $250,000 starting contribution, and had once dated the relationship from 2007 to match money that appeared in his account that year. The judge found that untrue and opportunistic. There was nothing but his word for the debts to his father and the other lender, and his father did not give evidence. His brother did, and produced letters of demand sent soon after the separation. The judge found the letters were written to support Mr Dyer's case in court. The judge accepted that $260,000 had been advanced in 2009 and 2013, but was not satisfied that any of it was still owed or would ever be pursued. Two houses had been sold without the brother being repaid. The debts came off the balance sheet. A $9,945 superannuation withdrawal Mr Dyer had used for his own purposes was added back.

That left about $628,000, including superannuation. Contributions were equal. But Mr Dyer had paid no child support since the separation, and Ms Kaeser had supported the three children on a limited income. The judge called this a very significant factor and made an adjustment in her favour that the judge put at about $100,000. The result was 58% to her, about $364,000, and 42% to him, about $264,000.

Mr Dyer was ordered to pay Ms Kaeser $288,969 within 60 days. If he did not, the house would be sold.