Under three years, a toddler, and his house bought before they met

Ms Camden and Mr Westing had an on-and-off de facto relationship that lasted at most two years and seven months, with breaks, before they separated in May 2022. They had a daughter, who was three at the hearing and lived with her mother, as did Ms Camden's older son. She was 26 and not in paid work. He was 35 and a tradesperson. Before the relationship began he had bought a house, and part of a second one with his family.

She asked for half of everything, including his super, plus a further 20% in place of spousal maintenance and 10% because, she said, family violence had made her contributions harder. She also sought lump sums for her own maintenance and for the children. He offered 15% of the pool in cash.

Judge Obradovic found a net pool of $924,171, including his house, his super and his share of the sale of the second property. The judge did not find her family violence allegations proven. She had been the main carer and homemaker, and he had been the main earner and a father figure to her son. But he brought in both properties and kept paying for his house before, during and after the relationship. After they separated she stayed for about a year in the house they had rented from him and his family, without paying rent. The judge assessed contributions at 5% to her and 95% to him.

The judge then looked forward. Both were young, but he had a much greater earning capacity, and she would keep caring for their daughter, had struggled to find housing and had little support. That justified a further 10% to her for future needs, a total of 15%, the share he had offered.

He was ordered to pay her $136,000 within 60 days, rounded up from $132,090 after allowing for $6,535 he had already paid. He kept his house, its mortgage and all his super. Her other claims for maintenance and lump sums were refused.