The Kane v Kane case is 'very significant', according to family law expert Glenn Thompson. He says: 'It's saying there's nothing in the Family Law Act that one contribution is special as opposed to another and should be treated higher than any other contribution.' In a previous decision, Mr Kane had been awarded a greater share of the assets because his investment strategy on the couple's superannuation fund - to which they contributed equally - had produced significant returns. His wife had not been in agreement with his tactic of investing in equities. 

External factors

But Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court, John Faulks, wrote in his judgment: 'It is difficult to correlate effort or skill (even if special) with result. Frequently, the financial result of a contribution (whether by physical or intellectual labour or imagination foresight and perspicacity) will be influenced by external factors beyond the control of the party contributing.' Source: Sydney Morning Herald