Almost everyone who sits down with us for the first time believes the same thing. That property gets split down the middle, and the job is to argue your way off 50/50.
It’s a common misconception. There’s no presumption of an equal split in Australian family law. The starting point is actually contributions, and the process is a structured one that ends in a percentage. Sometimes that lands near half. Often it doesn’t.
Knowing the four steps is genuinely useful, because it tells you which facts matter and which ones don’t.
Step one: work out what needs to be divided
You identify the property pool. Everything the two of you own, jointly and separately, wherever it is and whoever’s name it’s in.
That means the house, cars, savings, shares, businesses, investment properties, and importantly superannuation, which is treated as property in family law even though generally you can’t touch it yet. It also means the debts. Mortgages, credit cards, tax debts, personal loans.
You both have a duty of full and frank financial disclosure. It isn’t optional and it isn’t a negotiating tactic. Assets are valued as at the date of settlement or hearing, not the date you separated, which is one of the reasons delay tends to complicate things.
Step two: have a look at who contributed what
This is where most of the work happens, and it’s broader than people expect and not an exact science. The law counts three kinds of contributions and doesn’t rank them.
Financial contributions – wages, savings you brought into the relationship, an inheritance, a gift from family, the deposit on the house.
Non-financial contributions – renovating the house, doing the books for the business, work that increased the value of an asset.
Contributions as parent and homemaker – raising the children and running the household. This carries real weight. A parent who stayed home for a decade so the other could build a career has contributed substantially, and the law treats it that way.
Contributions are assessed across the whole relationship, including what each of you brought in at the start and anything you’ve contributed since separation.
Step three: look forward, not just back
The first two steps are about history. Step three asks whether an adjustment is needed for the future.
The Court looks at things like the age and health of each of you, who has the day-to-day care of the children and how that impacts incomes and earning capacity, and whether one of you is genuinely less able to support themselves going forward.
A common example. Two people contributed roughly equally over fifteen years, but one has primary care of three young children and has been out of the workforce, while the other has an established career. Equal contributions don’t produce an equal future, and step three is where that gets addressed.
Since the Family Law Act was amended in 2025, the economic effect of family violence is also an express consideration in property matters. If family violence has affected someone’s capacity to contribute, or to support themselves now, that’s squarely relevant.
Step four: is the result fair?
The last step is a check. Having worked through the first three, the Court stands back and asks whether the overall outcome is just and equitable in all the circumstances.
Think of it as the legal sniff test. Would a normal everyday person look at this division and think it was about right? If not, the numbers get adjusted.
What doesn’t count
Worth saying plainly, because these come up constantly.
Whose fault the separation was is irrelevant. We have a no-fault system. An affair, or who walked out, has no bearing on how the property is divided. The exception is where someone’s conduct has had a real financial effect, like gambling away the savings or deliberately wasting assets.
Whose name is on the title isn’t decisive. The pool includes assets held in one name alone. Putting the house in your name only doesn’t make it yours alone.
Hiding assets doesn’t work. It damages your credibility with the Court, and the lawyers for your ex can get anything relevant by filing a subpoena anyway. You could end up paying their legal fees for the privilege. If there’s something in your financial disclosure you’re worried about, tell us up front so we can send it with the context to explain it, rather than have it discovered.
You probably don’t need a courtroom
The four-step process is what a Judge applies, but the overwhelming majority of matters never get anywhere near a Judge. It matters because it’s the framework you negotiate against. Knowing roughly what a Court would do is what lets both sides settle sensibly.
Most matters resolve through negotiation between lawyers, or through mediation. If both of you turn up to mediation ready to make a deal, 99 times out of a hundred you will. Reaching agreement earlier means lower legal fees, every time.
Once you’ve agreed, it needs to be formalised, usually by Consent Orders (if you use our firm) at a cost of around $3,000 to $4,000. Until then it isn’t binding, no matter how carefully you’ve written it down.
What if there’s a business involved?
Company structures, family trusts, self-managed superannuation, director duties and guarantees all add genuine complexity, and getting it wrong can damage a business that both of you might still depend on. We work with the best accountants and valuers to keep your business moving through a separation. There’s more on our property and financial settlements page.
Come and talk to us
Every matter turns on its own facts, and percentages your friends quote you are rarely a useful guide to yours. Your first appointment is free and it’s real legal advice. Book online or call us on 07 2114 7131.
This article is general information only and doesn’t take your personal circumstances into account. It isn’t legal advice. Family law changed in significant respects in 2025 and outcomes depend heavily on individual facts, so please talk to a lawyer about your own situation.
