Years past the deadline, she still got 100% of the pool

Ms Arshad was still a teenager, and Mr Miata in his early twenties, when they began living together in 2000. They had three children and separated for the last time in June 2010. She held paid jobs during the relationship. He had periods out of work and periods in prison. In 2006 they bought a home in joint names for $281,000. She paid the deposit and most of the mortgage, while he regularly redrew on it.

For the next ten years she stayed in the home with the children and paid the mortgage alone, cutting it from $214,844 to $72,508. He fell well behind on child support. A de facto partner normally has two years after separation to apply for property orders. She applied in May 2019, almost nine years after they separated and years out of time. She said she had been too frightened of him to start proceedings, and had not had the emotional or financial resources to do so while raising three children on her own.

Mr Miata did not take part, so her evidence was uncontested. Judge Obradovic found the family violence she described was proven. The hardship of refusing her was plain: she had sole care of the children and had kept the home going by herself, and it would be "manifestly unjust and inequitable" to refuse her leave. The judge inferred that the violence had made her contributions as homemaker and parent more arduous, even though her evidence did not spell out its impact.

The judge left out what she had acquired since separation, including her car, a new super fund and her savings. That left a pool of $617,688, most of it the equity in the home. Contributions were assessed at 85% to her and 15% to him. A further 15% for future factors, including the children living with her and his child support arrears, took her to 100%. He had to transfer his share of the home to her, and she took over the mortgage.