And in the case of a recent dispute before the Family Court, a former high-flying businessman claimed he should take more of the spoils in a divorce settlement because his "entrepreneurial flair" has produced more wealth than his wife.

In a case dubbed Hoffman v Hoffman – a pseudonym to protect the identity of the 60-something couple – four judges turned their minds to the issue, from the original decision to an appeal.

Mr Hoffman argued the couple's $10 million fortune should be split 70:30 in his favour in recognition of his "special contribution", described as his "skill" and "entrepreneurial flair". He claimed his wife, who raised their four children and did paid work over four decades of marriage, was indifferent to his money-making ventures and "preferred to play mah-jong and read books".

Federal Circuit Court Judge Jim Brewster rejected Mr Hoffman's argument. He said the concept of "special contributions" was not part of Australian law. He said a 1984 High Court case on special contributions, Mallet v Mallet, was "infected with gender bias" and its ghost was "standing in the path of a just and equitable outcome".

Comparing financial and non-financial contributions to a marriage was like "comparing apples and carrots", he said, and it was "offensive" for home-making and child-rearing to be regarded as "menial" work.

Judge Brewster noted the concept of special contributions had been applied in "big money" cases, all of which involved men arguing their "particular skills" had resulted in a "very substantial fortune". But he said that if the concept of special contributions existed, $10 million was not "big money" and so this was not a case in which it would be applied.

He split the couple's assets 50:50, and Mr Hoffman appealed the decision to the full court of the Family Court.

Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks, Justice Peter Murphy and Justice Garry Watts dismissed the appeal last month.

Quoting an earlier decision, they said the notion of special contributions had been a "terrible mistake". In each case the court makes a decision about what is "just and equitable", balancing the relative contributions of husband and wife.

Family law expert Ben O'Sullivan, the principal of Sydney law firm Family Law Legal, said: "What happens if you had a really successful, rich wife ... and you had the house husband?

"Would her contributions be recognised as being special? No. It would still be a question of balancing the relative contributions."

Mr O'Sullivan said the law did not recognise any hierarchy of contributions but it was "quite appropriate" for the court to consider a party's direct contribution to generating wealth. A 50:50 split was not the starting position.

And in some rare cases the husband or wife might be able to argue there were two separate pools of assets.

"There would almost have to be a tacit acknowledgement between the parties that the husband or wife was off on a frolic of their own, and they didn't want anything to do with the upside or the downside of it," he said.