The woman says she received $4.2m while her ex-husband said she got almost $6m from the property.
They also owned a Sydney home which was sold. The husband retained about A$4.2m ($4.5m) from its sale.
The former couple also hold shares in a company that owns another Sydney property (valued at between A$1.2m and A$1.7m)
The couple also have a jointly-owned term deposit with $A2.4m in it and a family trust that holds A$3.4m.
The woman in June sought a A$2.4m interim distribution from their assets to meet debt, and her living and legal costs.
The man argued both of them should get an interim distribution of $A450,000 and claimed that a payment near the sum sought by his ex-wife could not be justified.
That was because, he claimed, it would likely exceed her final entitlement. He would not "die in a ditch" to resist an interim payment of A$1m to each of them, the court heard.
Justice Peter Woodhouse said an appropriate allowance for living expenses was $250,000.
"It is a sum which would appear to be reflective of the standard of living the parties enjoyed when together," he said.
On her level of debt, the judge said her liabilities were uncertain and different affadavits had put them at different levels.
The woman said that her legal costs were about $75,000 a month.
Justice Woodhouse believed an allowance for litigation costs should not exceed $500,000 and when combining that with payments for debt and living expenses the total was $963,000.
While the woman opposed her ex-husband getting a A$1m distribution, the judge was not persuaded her arguments justified him getting paid any less than her.
Justice Woodhouse ordered last month that both sides should each be paid A$1m from their joint account.
