She said their money was separate for 20 years. He was awarded 35%

Mr Abbott and Ms Dale lived together from 2004 until early 2024, a de facto relationship of about 20 years with no children together. By trial he was 74 and she was 70. When they met she owned a house and had about $45,000 in super. He was a transport worker on a modest wage, with about $159,000 in super and little else.

They ran a food truck and then, from 2009, a business selling outdoor products at caravan and camping shows, travelling in a caravan bought with his super. While they were away, her house was let as a short-stay rental. In 2014 they bought a second property in Queensland in joint names.

She reluctantly accepted a relationship only from 2009 to 2022, said their money had always been kept separate, and argued that no order should be made, which would have left her with 81.4% of the pool. He asked for 40%.

Judge Jenkins found they were a couple from 2004. They had never had a joint personal account, but they paid everyday expenses from the business account, which the judge said amounted to the same thing. There is no right to a property division, the judge accepted, but over 20 years their finances had become intermingled. His super now existed as a caravan worth $86,000, while her house had equity of $1.5 million and her super had grown to over $200,000. Leaving things as they were would not be just and equitable.

Weighing what each brought in and built, the judge assessed contributions at 63% to her. She was given 1% more for the property money and business funds he had used since separation, and another 1% because, after separation, he had committed family violence, including a report to the council the judge found was designed to hurt her rental income.

On a pool of $2,700,275, she was awarded 65%, about $1,755,000, and he 35%, about $945,000. He kept the caravan, his vehicles and his share of the Queensland sale money; she was ordered to pay him $445,968.25 and was expected to keep her home.