She earned more, but everything except super was split 50/50

Ms Barends and Mr Jerram lived together in Tasmania from about 2004 until early 2019. They never married. Their two children, then 12 and 9, lived with each of them week about. She had worked in a trade for the same employer throughout, earning around $100,000 a year, and he was self-employed.

Their property was a house worth $500,000, plant and equipment valued at $201,750 and some cash: $712,399 in all, less $227,528 of debts, mostly a $204,444 home loan. That left about $485,000. Her main super fund, which both treated as a defined benefit fund, was agreed at $422,080 and dealt with separately.

She asked for 55% of the property, for two reasons. She said she had come into the relationship with about $70,000 of equity in a property, and she had earned more. Judge McGuire was not persuaded by either. On her own evidence he had brought in about $60,000 of equity, so their starting positions were close, and 15 years of contributions of every kind had followed.

On income, the judge said it "is not, and has never been, good law" that a party gets a bigger share "simply because their pay packet may have been heavier" than the other's. What matters is each person's effort, and there was no evidence of any inequality of effort. Neither of them asked for a future-needs adjustment.

The net property was divided 50/50, and she kept the house and its mortgage. Her super was treated differently, because she had been a member of the fund for about 7 years before they moved in together. He asked for $150,000 of it and she offered $50,000. The judge made a flagging order with a base amount for him of $126,624, about 30% of the fund's agreed value. Even after that, on the agreed values, she kept more of the couple's super than he did.