They kept their money separate, so the court made no order

Ms McClain and Mr Heath met in 2008. Both had been married before and both were in modest financial circumstances. In late 2010 she moved into his childhood home near Sydney, where he had returned to care for his elderly father. His father charged them no rent and paid most of the bills. Apart from a separation for most of 2012, they lived there together until February 2016, a little over four years in all.

They kept their finances separate. They had their own bank accounts, opened no joint account and bought nothing together. At separation each of them owned less than $50,000, including super. Later in 2016 his father died, and he inherited the home, which was worth $1.6 million by the time of the trial.

She first asked for $300,000. By the end of the hearing, her counsel asked for 5% of the home, $80,000. She pointed to the cleaning she had done when they moved in, her housework and the help she gave his father. Mr Heath asked the court to dismiss her application.

Judge Betts accepted that she had made contributions, including many hours cleaning mould from the house, but found her evidence unreliable in several respects and her financial contributions only a modest fraction of what she claimed. Their living costs had largely been subsidised by his father. The judge found that the contributions each had made were already reflected in what each owned. The judge also declined to adjust for her much weaker financial position, saying that ordering him to pay her a sum on that ground alone would be arbitrary.

Applying the High Court's approach in Stanford, the judge started from what each already owned. He was the sole owner of a home his parents had bought before he was born, and he inherited it only after they separated. Two mature people had agreed to stay financially independent, and the judge found it would not be just and equitable to let them depart from that. Her application was dismissed.