She brought in $718,000 and an inheritance. He left with 17.5%

Ms Raynes and Mr Grigsby were in a de facto relationship for about 11½ years, from 2006 to November 2017. They lived mainly at a Tasmanian property she bought in 2007 and later put into both names. She had a professional career, and her business at times took in more than $500,000 a year. She brought $718,273 in net assets and superannuation into the relationship. He had little savings and a student debt of $26,043, which she paid off, and he had not worked consistently for perhaps 30 years.

In mid-2012 she received an inheritance of $122,976. From 2013 to mid-2018, after she stopped working in 2012, income protection insurance paid her about $150,000 a year on average. Even so, by the trial the pool outside superannuation was just $320,053, less than she had brought in. A self-managed super fund set up almost entirely with her money had fallen to $229,400 after share trading.

She asked for 90%. Mr Grigsby, aged 67 and living on Centrelink benefits, asked for 30%. Judge McGuire found her financial contributions were overwhelming and his were almost entirely non-financial: work on the gardens, support through her earlier family law case and a period when she could not work, and effort in the share trading, which counted for the effort even though it lost money. Contributions were assessed at 90% to her and 10% to him. She also claimed that family violence by him had made her contributions harder. He generally denied it, and the judge was not satisfied that violence by him had caused or contributed to her difficulties, so the claim brought no adjustment.

Looking ahead, she was in her mid-sixties and on a contract paying up to $195,000 that would end in 2020. He had no income beyond benefits. The judge moved 7.5% to him, so both the property and the super fund were divided 82.5% to her and 17.5% to him. That meant 17.5% of $320,053, or $56,009.27, for him, and a super split of $79,972 to her. She kept the super she had built up since separation.