A $15 million pool, her parents' gifts and his career: 65% to her

Mr and Ms Petrellis married and began living together in 2002 and separated in October 2020. Both were medical professionals. When their first child was born she stopped work and ran the home and the two children full time, while his career flourished. By the trial his gross income was over $1 million a year. Her parents had given the couple more than $2.5 million, most of it put into property and family expenses. That included $940,000 towards a family home bought for $4.7 million and valued at about $16.5 million at trial.

Judge Jenkins found a pool, apart from super, of $14,060,433. Day-to-day contributions were equal, but the gifts lifted the wife to 57.5%. He had told her during the marriage: "You are worth more to me at home." The judge found her homemaking had helped build his earning capacity, and that she would need three to four years of retraining to work in her field again. She added 5% for future needs. The wife received 62.5% of the non-super pool, about $8.79 million, and each kept their own super, which came to 60.7% of everything.

The wife appealed. Deputy Chief Justice McClelland found that both sides had argued the case as one pool including super, and the judge had not explained why she treated super separately. That difference was worth $269,681 to the wife. He decided the case again on updated figures, a total pool of $15,427,960 including super.

He kept the 7.5% for her parents' gifts, noting that market forces, not only their money, had driven up the home's value. But he gave a further 7.5% for future needs. Her earning capacity had suffered from the long marriage and the roles they had chosen, and his earning capacity was one of the most valuable assets of the marriage. The result was 65% to her and 35% to him: about $10.03 million and $5.40 million.