De Facto Property Settlements in Victoria: The Two-Year Threshold and Dividing Significant Assets 

A de facto property settlement in Victoria can involve the same level of legal and financial scrutiny as a divorce property settlement, particularly where business interests, trusts, real property, inheritances, investment structures, or other significant assets are involved. The central question is not simply who holds legal title, but whether the relationship meets the statutory gateway for Court intervention and, if so, what division is just and equitable. 

For high-net-worth individuals, directors, professionals and business owners, the two-year requirement for de facto relationships is often the first contested issue. Under section 90SB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), often described as the section 90SB gateway for de facto property claims, a party will generally need to establish a relationship of at least two years, a child of the relationship, a registered relationship, or substantial contributions where serious injustice would otherwise result.

If that threshold is met, section 90SM allows the Court to alter property interests after identifying the asset pool and undertaking a careful contributions assessment, including financial contributions, non-financial contributions, homemaking and parenting roles, and future needs. The High Court’s reasoning in Stanford v Stanford confirms that any adjustment must first be justified as just and equitable. 

When Can the Court Divide Property After a De Facto Relationship Ends in Victoria? 

The legal framework for a de facto property settlement in Victoria is found in Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The two central provisions are section 90SB, which determines whether the Court has power to make orders, and section 90SM, which governs the alteration of property interests after a de facto relationship has broken down. Section 90SM permits the Court to alter interests in property if it is appropriate to do so, but the Court must be satisfied that making an order is just and equitable. 

The first issue is the section 90SB gateway for de facto property claims. A party will usually need to show that the relationship lasted at least two years. However, the de facto two-year requirement is not the only pathway. The gateway may also be met if there is a child of the relationship, the relationship was a registered relationship under a prescribed State or Territory law, or one party made substantial contributions and serious injustice would result if no order were made. This is particularly important in short but financially significant relationships, where wealth, business interests, asset transfers or unpaid non-financial contributions may be central to the dispute. 

The Court must also determine whether a de facto relationship existed. That inquiry is factual and looks at the relationship, including cohabitation, financial arrangements, public presentation, mutual commitment, and the practical organisation of the parties’ lives. In Sinclair & Whittaker, the Full Court considered whether a de facto relationship of at least two years had been established and emphasised that competing evidence must be assessed in context. 

Once the gateway is met, the Court turns to the property settlement exercise. It identifies the asset pool, considers financial and non-financial contributions, evaluates homemaking and parenting roles, and assesses future needs. For high-net-worth parties, the contributions assessment may include company growth, trust structures, retained earnings, inheritances, property development, professional practice value, and risk allocation. Stanford v Stanford confirms that the Court does not alter property interests automatically; there must be a principled basis for concluding that an order is just and equitable. 

How Do Courts Approach De Facto Property Settlements Involving Significant Assets? 

What must be proven before the Court can divide property? 

In a de facto property settlement in Victoria, the Court first asks whether it has jurisdiction to make property orders. This usually requires proof that the relationship meets the section 90SB gateway for de facto property claims. The most common pathway is the two-year requirement for de facto relationships, but it is not the only one. A claim may also proceed where there is a child of the relationship, a registered relationship, or substantial contributions that would make it unjust for the Court to refuse relief. 

For high-net-worth parties, this threshold stage can be heavily contested. A relationship may be financially intertwined even if the parties maintain separate homes, companies, or banking arrangements. Conversely, cohabitation alone does not automatically establish the kind of de facto relationship that permits property adjustment. 

What evidence matters when the relationship itself is disputed? 

Courts examine the relationship as a whole. Relevant evidence may include the duration of the relationship, living arrangements, financial dependence or interdependence, joint acquisitions, public presentation as a couple, estate planning documents, travel records, communications, and the way major expenses were paid. 

In significant-asset matters, contemporaneous records are often more persuasive than general recollections. Company records, trust distributions, loan documents, property transfers, tax returns, and financial statements may show whether the parties were operating as a shared economic unit or maintaining genuinely separate financial lives. 

How are significant assets identified and valued? 

Once jurisdiction is established, the Court identifies the asset pool. This can include real property, business interests, shares, trusts, loans, superannuation, inheritances, investment portfolios, and assets held through entities. Legal ownership is relevant, but it is not always decisive. Where self-managed superannuation forms part of the pool, SMSF interests in high-value separations may require careful attention to trustee control, valuation, tax consequences, and implementation. 

Where significant assets are involved, valuation evidence may be required. A private company, professional practice, family trust, or development interest may need careful analysis before any contributions assessment can be meaningful. The Court is concerned with the real financial position, not only the names appearing on title documents. 

How does the Court assess contributions and fairness? 

The Court then considers financial contributions, non-financial contributions, homemaking and parenting roles, and future needs. In a high-value de facto dispute, this may include capital introduced at the start of the relationship, business growth during the relationship, unpaid work in a family enterprise, indirect support that enabled wealth creation, and responsibility for children. 

The final question is whether the proposed adjustment is just and equitable. That inquiry is not mechanical. A party with substantial pre-relationship wealth may retain a strong argument for quarantining or weighting certain assets, while the other party may point to contributions that improved, preserved, or enabled the growth of those assets. 

What Disputes Commonly Arise in High-Value De Facto Property Settlements in Victoria? 

Common disputes in a de facto property settlement in Victoria often begin with the threshold question: was there a qualifying de facto relationship at all? This issue is particularly acute where the parties were financially independent, maintained separate residences for part of the relationship, or deliberately kept business and personal affairs separate. One party may rely on shared holidays, family events, estate planning documents, or regular cohabitation. The other may point to separate bank accounts, separate property ownership, and limited financial interdependence. 

The two-year requirement for de facto relationships is also frequently contested. Disputes arise over when the relationship began, when it ended, whether periods of separation interrupt the calculation, and whether the relationship had changed character before final separation. In high-value matters, a few months can affect whether the section 90SB gateway for de facto property claims is satisfied. 

Short relationships involving significant assets create another recurring issue. A party may have entered the relationship with substantial wealth, a business, a trust structure, inherited property, or pre-existing investments. The dispute then becomes whether the other party made contributions that justify an adjustment, particularly where those contributions were indirect, unpaid, or difficult to quantify. Examples include supporting a director through a business expansion, managing household and parenting responsibilities while wealth was accumulated, or helping preserve assets during a period of commercial pressure. 

A registered relationship may reduce argument about the statutory gateway, but it rarely resolves the property dispute itself. The Court must still identify the asset pool, assess contributions, and determine whether any adjustment is just and equitable. Disputes commonly arise over private company value, trust distributions, inter-entity loans, retained earnings, unpaid tax liabilities, and whether certain assets should be treated as personal, business-related or relationship property. In matters involving high-asset property settlement disputes, valuation evidence and forensic accounting often become central to understanding the real financial position. 

Disclosure is often the practical pressure point. Where one party controls companies, trusts, professional practices, or investment entities, the other may suspect that the visible asset pool does not reflect the true financial position. For high-net-worth individuals, a careful contributions assessment depends on reliable documents, credible valuation evidence, and a disciplined understanding of how wealth was created, preserved, and used during the relationship. 

What Should Clients Consider Before Pursuing or Defending a De Facto Property Settlement? 

Before pursuing or defending a de facto property settlement in Victoria, the first strategic question is whether the claim clears the jurisdictional threshold. If the section 90SB gateway for de facto property claims is uncertain, early evidence about the relationship’s duration, living arrangements, financial interdependence and public presentation can be decisive. In some matters, the dispute is won or narrowed before the Court reaches valuation or division. 

For high-net-worth individuals, directors and professionals, asset control and document control are often central. A party who controls companies, trusts, investment entities, or professional practice records should expect scrutiny. A party seeking orders should not assume that suspicion alone will move the matter forward. The case must be built through disclosure, financial records, valuation material, and a clear explanation of how the relationship affected wealth creation, preservation, or use. 

Timing also matters. Delay can make it harder to reconstruct contributions, identify asset movements, and value interests at the relevant date. Early advice is particularly important where there are significant assets, business restructures, trust distributions, inter-entity loans, or concerns that assets may be transferred or encumbered. 

A disciplined contributions assessment is usually more effective than a broad fairness argument. The Court is concerned with evidence, not assumptions about lifestyle or wealth. The strongest cases connect the legal gateway, the asset pool, the history of contributions, and the proposed adjustment into a coherent position that is capable of being tested. 
 

Frequently Asked Questions 

What should you do if a de facto property settlement involves significant assets? 

A de facto property settlement in Victoria requires early clarity on the section 90SB gateway, the asset pool, the evidence of contributions and whether any proposed adjustment is just and equitable. Where significant assets include companies, trusts, professional practices, property portfolios or inherited wealth, the dispute should be approached with precision from the outset. 

Pentana Stanton Lawyers advises high-net-worth individuals, directors, professionals, and business owners in complex family law property matters. For advice on a de facto property settlement involving substantial assets, business interests or disputed contributions, contact our family law team or book a consultation. 

This article is general information only and not legal advice. For advice specific to your circumstances, please contact our team.