Her late inheritance counted, and so did what he took

Ms and Mr Woodrow lived together from about 2004, married in 2015 and separated in October 2021, 17 years in all. They had no children together. He was a tradesperson. She said he earned two to three times her income and largely controlled the finances. She worked in administration and did most of the homemaking. Over the years they bought a home in Victoria, investment properties, and a self-managed super fund that owned a rental property.

In 2018 she inherited about $480,000 from a relative. It went into their joint account and was spent on the family: $140,000 off the home loan, $80,000 renovating the home, money towards a Queensland investment property and its renovation, and cars for both of them. In 2020 it also let her start her own business.

Mr Woodrow took no real part in the case and made no financial disclosure, although he told her lawyers that everything should be split equally. Judge Champion said an inheritance is generally treated as a contribution of the person who receives it, unless it was clearly meant for both, and that more recent contributions can carry greater weight. Her inheritance was about 65% of the $738,040 pool outside super. Looking at all of their contributions over 17 years, the judge assessed them at 65% to her and 35% to him.

Two things then moved a further 10% to her. He earned about $117,000 a year against her $45,000. And the judge found that he had taken marital money for himself: unexplained withdrawals of about $120,000 or more from the joint loan account, and $41,000 from the sale of an investment property that he moved into his own account without telling her. The result was 75% ($553,530) to her and 25% ($184,510) to him. The super fund was split equally, with $234,599 allocated to her, less half of the capital gains tax. Her homemaking over a long relationship counted towards super he had mostly paid in.