He earned the money and did most chores, yet the split ended near even

Mr Hainsworth and Ms Pardue lived together in New South Wales from about late 2006 until July 2020. They did not marry, and had one daughter, then 16, who lived with her mother after they separated. He worked full time as a public servant. She did not work in paid employment during the relationship. She had been injured in accidents in 2005 and 2006 and believed she could not work, though there was no medical evidence supporting that, and she received compensation payments until 2012.

The judge found he had also done most of the household duties, except while their daughter was small and while he recovered from a serious accident in 2012, when she probably did more. The judge found her care at home had helped him build his super. He had brought about $100,000 of super into the relationship, and part of the proceeds of an earlier property went into the deposit on their home.

Their pool was $618,095 net, and most of it was his super: $442,318, against her $5,876. Their home was worth $428,000 but carried a $304,006 loan, and he had credit card debts. He wanted 67.5% of the assets other than super. She asked for 60% overall.

Judge Newbrun assessed contributions at 62.5% to him and 37.5% to her. Then the court looked ahead. She was 39, had been out of paid work for over 18 years, had almost no super and would have to rehouse herself and their daughter when the home was sold. He was 52 and still employed, on light duties, earning $2,505 a week gross. The judge made a 10% adjustment in her favour, which brought the result to 52.5% to him and 47.5% to her.

The home is sold and his debts paid from the proceeds. A super split gives her $210,101 from his fund, and she is to receive $36,518 from the sale and the car she drives. He was also ordered to pay her spousal maintenance of $32 a week for 18 months, all that was left of his income after his expected expenses.