Her capital bought the business, his work rebuilt it: 83/17

Ms Walls and Mr Keeble began a relationship in 2011, both in their mid-forties, each married before and each with children. Their de facto relationship lasted until December 2019, about eight years. She was already wealthy: years earlier she had developed and sold land for a net $5 million. He earned a high income working away from home.

In 2012 they bought a run-down rural property, through a trust with a company as trustee, and ran it as guest accommodation. The deal was that her capital would buy it and his income would pay for the renovations. It cost $1.5 million, which she funded. Both worked hard: he did maintenance and repairs, and she did the administration, bookings and gardens. But it gave them a lifestyle rather than an income, and from time to time she had to prop it up from her savings. By her calculation she or her trust paid in $1,902,885 and took out $134,978. He took out more than he put in.

Judge Betts found a pool, apart from super, of $8,234,120. After separation Mr Keeble removed tools, vehicles and equipment from the property, including her car, which he later dishonestly transferred into his own name. He had not fully disclosed his finances, so $50,000 was added back. Her initial contributions "loom large", and his loans to the business had been repaid. Contributions were assessed at 83% to her and 17% to him.

He argued for more because she had not accepted a $5.15 million offer for the property and because it might be rezoned for housing. The judge rejected both: the offer was too uncertain to be given any weight, she was not obliged to sell her home, and the rezoning was too speculative, while the valuation already allowed for the site's development potential. Nothing was added for future factors. She kept the property and paid him $1,085,042. Each kept their own super.