Book a Consultation
  1. Home
  2. Family Law
  3. Division of Assets
Family Law / Melbourne

Division of Assets After Separation

There is no starting point of half. There is not even an automatic right to an adjustment. Since 10 June 2025 the assessment the court works through is set out in the Act, and understanding it is the difference between negotiating from a position and negotiating from a hope.

How division actually works

The question is not what is fair. It is what is just and equitable

Most people arrive at a separation with a number in mind, usually half, occasionally everything. Neither is where the law starts. Australian family law contains no presumption of equal sharing, and it does not divide assets according to whose name is on what.

What it does is work through a structured assessment: what exists, what each person contributed, where each person now stands, and whether an adjustment is justified at all. Two couples with identical balance sheets can properly end up with very different outcomes.

This page is about that assessment. If you are looking for how a settlement is run, valued and documented, see property settlement.

Family law at Pentana Stanton

Contributions

Financial, non-financial, and contributions to the welfare of the family.

Current & future circumstances

Earning capacity, care of children, health, and what each party faces next.

The threshold question

Whether it is just and equitable to make any adjusting order at all.

Adjustments

Where the percentage moves, and what genuinely moves it.

Inheritances & gifts

Money that came from outside the relationship, and how it is treated.

Short relationships

Where each party largely keeps what they brought, and where they do not.

Current to 10 June 2025

The four things the court has to work through

The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) commenced on 10 June 2025 and put the assessment into the Act itself. Where the structure used to be assembled out of case law, it is now legislated. The court must identify all property and liabilities; assess each party's contributions, both to the property pool and to the welfare of the family; assess each party's current and future circumstances; and make only orders that are, in all the circumstances, just and equitable.

Nothing in that sequence starts at half, and nothing in it guarantees an adjustment.

That last point is the one most people have never heard. Before anything is divided, the court has to be satisfied that it is just and equitable to make an order altering property interests at all. Separation does not automatically produce a redistribution, and in some cases, particularly shorter relationships where finances stayed separate, the answer is that no adjustment is warranted.

Identify, then assess

Property and liabilities first, because debts count as much as assets. The effect of one party materially wasting assets is now expressly a consideration, as is the economic effect of family violence where relevant.

Two different lenses

Contributions look backwards at what each person put in. Current and future circumstances look forwards at where each person now stands. They are separate questions and they can pull in opposite directions.

Just and equitable, twice

It operates as a threshold before any adjustment is made, and again as a check on the result. A percentage that follows arithmetically from the contributions can still fail it.

Backwards-looking

Contributions are not just the money

The Act requires the court to assess contributions to the property pool and contributions to the welfare of the family. That second limb is the whole reason a settlement is not simply an audit of who deposited what.

A parent who stayed home has contributed. So has the partner who ran the household while the other built the business.

In practice contributions come in three kinds. Financial: income, savings, an asset brought into the relationship, an inheritance. Non-financial: renovating the house, working unpaid in the family business, managing the investments. And contributions to the welfare of the family: raising the children, running the home, and the domestic capacity that made the other person's career or business possible.

The longer the relationship, the harder it becomes to argue that one column outweighs the other. In a long marriage where one party earned and the other ran the family, contributions are frequently assessed as broadly comparable, and the interesting arguments move to the second question instead. Where a business is involved, see family law for business owners.

Forwards-looking

Where each of you actually stands now

Equal contributions do not mean an equal division. The second assessment looks at each party's current and future circumstances: age and health, earning capacity, who will care for the children, what each person realistically needs, and the financial position each will be in once the relationship's economics are unwound.

This is where a percentage most often shifts away from an even split. A party who left the workforce for fifteen years does not re-enter it on the same terms as the party who did not, and the assessment recognises that.

One structural note worth knowing if you are reading older material. These factors used to be reached by a cross-reference from the property provisions to the spousal maintenance provisions, which is why so many explanations of property settlement are difficult to follow. The 2024 amendments removed that cross-referencing and state the considerations in the property provisions directly. If a guide sends you to the spousal maintenance section to understand your property entitlement, it predates June 2025.

Where the argument gets hard

When the assessment is genuinely contestable

The framework is the same for everyone. Whether it is arguable depends on the facts.

One earner, one at home

The classic contest between financial contribution on one side and contribution to the welfare of the family on the other, combined with a real gap in future earning capacity. Both limbs matter and they cut differently.

The settlement process

Wealth from outside

Inheritances, family gifts and assets held through a trust raise the question of whether the money is really part of the relationship's economics at all, and who controls it.

Trusts and family law

Substantial pools

Where the pool is large, a few percentage points is a great deal of money, so the assessment is argued in detail and the evidence behind each limb has to hold up.

High net worth settlements
Speak with us

A realistic percentage, not a comforting one

Initial consultations are confidential and run by senior practitioners. The most useful thing we can give you early is an honest range, because a realistic expectation is what makes a negotiation work.

Book a consultation
Money from outside

Inheritances and gifts

An inheritance is not automatically excluded from the pool, and it is not automatically shared either. It is treated as a contribution by the party who received it, and how much weight it carries depends heavily on when it arrived and what happened to it afterwards.

An inheritance received last year and kept in a separate account sits very differently from one received twenty years ago that paid down the mortgage on the family home. See binding financial agreements if you want to deal with this in advance.

The threshold in practice

Short relationships

This is where the just and equitable threshold does real work. Where a relationship was short, finances stayed largely separate, and each party can simply take back what they brought, a court may conclude that no adjusting order should be made at all.

That is not a rule about length, though. A short relationship with intermingled finances, a jointly bought home or a child can produce a very different answer. See separation and divorce for the timing that applies.

What our clients say

Trusted on the matters that mattered most

Pentana Stanton are definitely the best lawyers to represent you in court. I was often distressed about my matter but they always showed compassion and tried to support me in the best way possible. Penny always fought for me even though my custody dispute was a difficult one.
Sara Winter, Google review
After speaking to many law firms, I felt that getting legal help was not for me. But my view completely changed after speaking with Special Counsel Peter Wood. He was knowledgeable, generous, kind, and genuinely caring.
Tasnim Mehjabin, Google review
Highly professional, compassionate staff with a high level of knowledge and competence. Reliable, reassuring and there when you need them. Highly recommend.
Gaynor Martyn, Google review
Frequently asked

What people actually want to know

No, and there is no presumption of equal sharing in Australian family law. The court works through a structured assessment: identifying property and liabilities, assessing each party's contributions, assessing each party's current and future circumstances, and then asking whether the result is just and equitable in all the circumstances. An even split is a possible outcome of that process, not its starting point.
Not automatically. Before making any order altering property interests, the court has to be satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so. That is a genuine threshold, and it means separation does not of itself produce a redistribution. In some cases, particularly shorter relationships where finances stayed separate, the proper answer is that no adjusting order should be made.
Yes. The Act requires the court to assess contributions to the welfare of the family as well as contributions to the property pool. Raising children and running a household are contributions in their own right, not concessions. In long relationships with one primary earner, contributions on each side are frequently assessed as broadly comparable.
Possibly. A difference in earning capacity is part of the assessment of each party's current and future circumstances, and it is the most common reason a division moves away from an even split. How far it moves depends on the size of the gap, the length of the relationship, who is caring for children, and what the pool can actually accommodate.
It is neither automatically excluded nor automatically shared. It is generally treated as a contribution by the party who received it, and the weight it carries turns on timing and what happened to the money. An inheritance received recently and kept separate is treated very differently from one received decades ago that went into the family home.
They form part of the pool, but bringing them in counts as a contribution by you. In a short relationship that can be close to decisive. In a long one, an initial contribution tends to carry progressively less weight as decades of joint contributions accumulate on top of it.
Conduct as such is generally not the question, because divorce in Australia is no-fault and property division follows the statutory assessment rather than blame. But conduct with financial consequences can matter: the effect of one party materially wasting assets is now expressly a consideration, and so is the economic effect of family violence, where relevant.
The assessment is materially the same. What differs is the gateway, because a de facto couple has to establish the relationship existed and meet the threshold requirements before the property provisions apply, and the time limit for bringing a claim runs from the breakdown of the relationship rather than from a divorce order.
Generally yes. The property changes apply to new and existing proceedings, except where a final hearing has already commenced. They also apply whether your settlement is decided by a court or negotiated privately, so they are relevant even if you never intend to litigate.

Last reviewed July 2026. References are to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as amended by the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), which commenced on 10 June 2025. Property matters are dealt with by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. This page is general information, not legal advice.

Speak with our family law team

Know the range before you negotiate.

A realistic view of where the assessment lands is worth more than a confident view of where you would like it to. Arrange a consultation and we will give you an honest read on the contributions, the circumstances, and the range a court would consider just and equitable.