- Created by: MattieGoodchild
- Created on: 11-10-14 15:05
White v White 
- most important case on s25.
- used "reasonable requirements" in the first instance decision (which is not a s25 factor but had been used in a lot of cases).
- CoA held that "reasonable needs" should not be determining factor.
- Two principles:
- there can be no discrimination between H and W's respective roles - homemaker as important as breadwinner.
- "yardstick of equality" - equality should only be departed from if there is a good reason for doing so, although no presumption of equality.
Parra v Parra 
- H and W had always arranged affairs to achieve equality.
- Equal division of assets was the "overwhelmingly obvious decision."
Cowan v Cowan 
- CoA granted appeal against first instance court's use of "reasonable requirements".
- CoA did not award 50% to wife…