She brought the house, he paid and renovated: 70/30 after four years

Ms Belkin and Mr Ming lived together as a de facto couple from early 2014 until March 2018, about four years. They had a child in 2017, and her son from an earlier relationship lived with them. When the relationship began she owned a house with about $46,000 of equity. He was a tradesman with his own business. Using the equity in her house, they bought a second property together, which was later sold for little more than its debts.

By the trial her house was worth $710,000. After separation she had borrowed against it to pay her legal fees and a car deposit, and she agreed that $145,500 of that should be added back to the pool. The judge found a net pool of $540,058, including both parties' super. She asked for 80%. He asked for half, pointing to his mortgage payments and his work on the houses.

Judge Turnbull found that both had made important financial contributions. The payments recorded as rent were in fact contributions to the mortgage and household costs. He had done most of the skilled renovation work on both properties and spent an $8,000 inheritance on the family. She had worked until their child was born, kept the books for his business and was the main carer. But her house was of central importance, because it grew quickly in value and was used to buy the second property. Contributions were assessed at 65% to her and 35% to him.

The judge added 5% for her, because she was the primary carer, he owed her unpaid child support and he had greater earning capacity. The judge also weighed points in his favour, including his support of her son, such as $10,300 towards school fees, and her disposal of some of his belongings after separation.

The result was 70% to her and 30% to him. She could keep the house if she paid him $120,256.40 within 60 days. If she could not, he could take it over, and if neither could, it would be sold.