High Asset Divorce Lawyers in Melbourne

What this practice area covers

This page anchors our work on divorces involving substantial wealth, conducted out of our Melbourne CBD and Dandenong offices and heard in the FCFCOA's Melbourne registry. The cluster includes founders and operating shareholders of private companies, professionals with deferred compensation and partnership equity, investors with property portfolios, beneficiaries and controllers of family trusts, and clients with material assets held outside Australia.

The defining feature is not the headline dollar figure. It is the combination of structural complexity, the presence of illiquid wealth that requires expert valuation, and the live risk that one party will dissipate, encumber, or restructure assets if the matter is run without urgency. The work is contested rather than collaborative. Where collaborative pathways are available we use them, but the matters anchored to this page are typically the ones where collaboration has been attempted and has failed, or was never on the table.

We do not run consumer-volume divorce work. For the substantive settlement mechanics, including pool composition, business valuation, SMSF splitting, and tax-aware structuring, see our deeper hub on High Net Worth Property Settlements in Victoria. Where the dispute centres on a business interest specifically, see Family Law for Business Owners.

The legal framework for high asset divorces in Australia

Divorce and property settlement are legally distinct in Australia. The divorce order itself, granted under section 48 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) after twelve months of separation, dissolves the marriage. The financial unwinding is dealt with separately under sections 79 (married parties) and 90SM (de facto parties) of the Act. In a high asset matter the divorce order is rarely the contested question. The financial proceedings are.

The Court's task under section 79 is to decide whether it is just and equitable to alter existing property interests, and if so, in what way. The framework summarised in In the Marriage of Hickey [2003] FamCA 395; (2003) 30 Fam LR 355 and routinely applied since requires the Court to identify and value the pool, assess each party's contributions over the relationship, assess each party's future needs under section 75(2), and then consider whether the proposed division is just and equitable in all the circumstances.

Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52; (2012) 247 CLR 108 reaffirmed that the just and equitable threshold is not a formality. The High Court confirmed the Court must be positively satisfied that altering existing property interests is just and equitable at all. The Full Court applied that reasoning in Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116, which became an important reference point on how the Stanford threshold operates outside the bare-trustee facts of Stanford itself. In high asset divorces the threshold is most often engaged where one party seeks to quarantine substantial pre-relationship wealth, inherited assets, or post-separation contributions.

Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; (1984) 156 CLR 605 remains relevant authority on the assessment of financial contributions in property cases. The decision is over forty years old but its analysis of the relationship between direct financial contributions and the discretionary judgment under section 79 continues to influence how courts approach disproportionate contribution disputes in HNW matters.

On valuation methodology, Salmon and Ors & Salmon [2020] FamCAFC 134 sets the procedural gateway for departing from a single expert valuation. The Full Court confirmed that a party seeking to tender a shadow report or adduce evidence from a second expert must show a substantial body of opinion to the contrary, not merely a difference of opinion. In contested high asset divorces this is the most consequential procedural decision early in the matter, because the single expert's valuation often anchors the negotiating position for the rest of the proceedings.

Spousal maintenance during and after a high asset divorce is governed by section 72, with future needs assessed under section 75(2). Disclosure is governed by the Federal Circuit and Family Court Rules 2021 (Cth), and the duty of full and frank financial disclosure extends to overseas assets, trust positions, and beneficial interests held through nominees.

The lifecycle of a high asset divorce

Most contested high asset divorces follow a recognisable shape. The first phase, from separation to filing, is where the matter is either positioned well or not. The conduct of correspondence, the preservation of evidence, the timing of disclosure requests, and the assessment of whether to bring urgent applications all sit in this window. We typically engage at this stage, before any application is filed.

The second phase covers urgent and interim applications. Where there is a real risk of asset dissipation, restructure, or removal from the jurisdiction, applications for injunctive relief under section 114 of the Act or for freezing orders are addressed before substantive disclosure runs. Interim spousal maintenance and interim property orders for legal costs are also commonly addressed at this stage in high asset matters.

The third phase is disclosure and valuation. Full and frank disclosure, single expert appointments, and the question of whether to tender a second expert under the Salmon gateway dominate this phase. For matters with overseas assets, trust structures, or private company interests, this phase is often the longest and most contested part of the proceedings.

The fourth phase is dispute resolution, which in practice means a combination of without-prejudice negotiation, conciliation conferences run by the Court, and private mediation. The substantial majority of high asset matters resolve at this stage. The minority that do not proceed to trial in the FCFCOA Melbourne registry, with final orders entered under sections 79 and 81 of the Act.

How we approach a high asset divorce

We treat the first ninety days as the period of highest leverage. The matter is positioned at intake, not at trial. We work through the asset map, the structural risks, the preservation strategy, and the disclosure plan before any letter goes out to the other side. Where urgent applications are warranted we move quickly, but we do not bring urgent applications as a tactical default because the cost of an unsuccessful application is paid for the rest of the matter.

Disclosure is treated as an offensive workstream, not a defensive one. The party that controls the disclosure timetable usually controls the negotiating environment. We coordinate with forensic accountants, business valuers, and where relevant offshore counsel from the start of the matter, not after the first round of disclosure has been exchanged.

Settlement is the goal in most matters, but settlement on terms that hold. Consent orders that paper over disclosure gaps or under-document the structural transfer mechanics are set aside more often than clients expect. We draft consent orders to be as durable as a Court judgment, because in practical effect that is what they are.

For matters that proceed to trial, the run-up to hearing is where the case is won or lost. Evidence preparation, expert reconciliation, and the structure of the trial brief receive the same disciplined attention as the earlier procedural work. Senior involvement runs through the matter rather than appearing only at the trial date.