What Am I Entitled to in a Separation? – A Comprehensive Five-Step Approach

When a relationship ends, determining what you are entitled to in a property settlement in Australia depends on a structured five-step approach. The court first identifies and values all assets and liabilities of both parties, then considers whether it is just and equitable to make any adjustments to their property rights. Contributions, both financial and non-financial, are assessed, followed by consideration of each party’s future needs, such as income disparity or child-rearing responsibilities. Finally, the court ensures the outcome is fair, making any necessary adjustments to achieve a just division of property.

Introduction to the Five-Step Process

When determining what each party is entitled to in a separation, the court follows a structured approach:

Identify the assets and liabilities that are available for division.
Evaluate whether it is fair and appropriate to make any adjustments to property ownership.
Examine and assess the contributions made by each party during the relationship.
Evaluate the future needs of each party, such as income, health, and care responsibilities.
Reassess whether the proposed division of property is fair and equitable

Step 1: What Am I Entitled to in a Separation? – Determining What Assets Are Available for Division

The first step in the property settlement process is identifying all the assets, liabilities, and financial resources of the parties. This is essential to establish the total value of the property pool that will be divided between the parties.

What Is Included in the Asset Pool?

The asset pool typically includes everything of value that was acquired during the relationship, regardless of whose name the asset is in. The Family Court takes a broad approach in identifying what constitutes an asset, including:

Real Estate:
- The family home (even if purchased before the relationship), any investment properties, or land.
Bank Accounts and Cash:
- All bank balances, savings, or cash on hand are included, whether they are individual or joint accounts.
Superannuation:
- Superannuation is treated as property in Australia and is included in the asset pool. The court may order a superannuation split, although it remains in the fund until retirement.
Vehicles:
- Cars, motorcycles, and other vehicles are included, as well as any boats or similar recreational vehicles.
Investments and Shares:
- Shares, stocks, and other investments, whether held individually or jointly, are part of the asset pool.
Businesses:
- If either party owns a business, the business’s value, including its assets, liabilities, and income-generating potential, is considered.
Personal Property:
- High-value personal items, such as jewellery, antiques, or artwork, may be included, especially if they were purchased during the relationship.
Debts and Liabilities:
- All debts, including mortgages, credit card debts, personal loans, and tax liabilities, are considered liabilities that must be deducted from the total value of the asset pool.
Other Financial Resources:
- This can include inheritances, trusts, or entitlements to future payments that are considered part of the financial resources of either party.

How Are Assets Valued?

Each asset must be assigned a current market value. For certain assets, like real estate, cars, or personal items, parties may agree on a value. However, if there is a dispute over the value of any item, independent professional valuations may be required.

For example, in the case of business interests, the court will often order a valuation by an expert to determine the fair market value of the business, factoring in its income potential and liabilities.

Example: Determining the Asset Pool in Real Estate and Superannuation

In McCulough v McCulough [2006] FamCA 840, the couple’s asset pool included a family home, valued at $724,000, and their superannuation funds, worth $137,000. The husband had accumulated the majority of his superannuation during the marriage, while the wife’s super was significantly smaller. The court included both the real estate and superannuation in the property pool and ensured the super was split proportionally based on each party’s contributions.

Inclusion of Superannuation

Superannuation in Australia is treated as property under the Family Law Act, but it is handled differently than other assets due to its inaccessibility until retirement. The Superannuation Splitting Laws allow super to be divided between the parties, but the portion awarded to each remains within their superannuation fund until they are eligible to access it.

Example: Superannuation Split

In Coghlan v Coghlan [2005] FamCA 429, the Full Court held that superannuation, though inaccessible at the time of separation, should be treated as part of the property pool and divided according to each party’s contributions and future needs. Superannuation was split between the husband and wife, with the wife receiving a larger portion due to her homemaking and parenting contributions.

What About Pre-Relationship Assets?

Assets acquired before the relationship may still be included in the property pool, particularly if they were used to benefit the couple during the relationship. However, the weight given to these pre-relationship assets will depend on how long the relationship lasted and the extent to which the other party contributed to the growth or maintenance of the asset.

Example: Treatment of Pre-Relationship Assets

In Kennon v Kennon [1997] FamCA 27, the husband owned a house before the marriage, which became the family home. During the marriage, the wife contributed to renovations and mortgage payments. The court ruled that the value of the house should be included in the asset pool, as the wife’s contributions helped improve and maintain it.

Debts and Liabilities

It’s essential to include liabilities when calculating the property pool. These debts are typically subtracted from the total value of the assets to arrive at the net pool for division. Both parties may be responsible for debts incurred during the relationship, regardless of whose name the debt is in.

Example: Liabilities in the Asset Pool

In Bonnaci v Bonnaci [2012] FamCAFC 15, the couple had significant debts, including a mortgage on their family home. The court took these debts into account when determining the net asset pool, deducting the mortgage and other liabilities from the total asset value before proceeding with the division.

The Importance of Full Disclosure

Both parties are required to make full and frank disclosure of all their assets, liabilities, and financial resources. Failure to do so can result in significant legal consequences, including having a settlement overturned if it later emerges that assets were hidden.

Example: Consequences of Non-Disclosure

In Weir v Weir [1993] FamCA 100, the husband failed to disclose a substantial sum held in an overseas bank account. When this was discovered, the court reopened the settlement and reallocated the assets, penalising the husband for his failure to disclose. The wife received a larger portion of the asset pool due to the non-disclosure.

Step 2: Is It ‘Just and Equitable’ to Make Any Adjustment? – What Am I Entitled to in a Separation

2. Consider Whether It Is ‘Just and Equitable’ to Make Any Adjustment

Before the court can proceed to divide property between parties following the breakdown of a relationship, it must first determine whether it is just and equitable to make any adjustment to the parties’ current property interests. This threshold question was highlighted in the High Court decision of Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52, where it was made clear that the court cannot automatically assume that property should be divided simply because the relationship has ended. Instead, the court must first evaluate whether altering the existing ownership arrangements is fair in the circumstances.

In Stanford, the High Court stressed that the mere fact of separation or divorce does not in itself justify adjusting property rights. There may be cases where it is unnecessary or inappropriate to intervene in the existing distribution of property. For example, if the parties have kept their finances separate throughout the relationship, or if one party already holds sole ownership of certain assets, the court might conclude that no adjustment is necessary. In such cases, the court could decide that the current division of property already reflects a fair outcome.

When Is an Adjustment Necessary?

In most cases involving joint property or significant shared contributions, the court will typically find that it is just and equitable to intervene and assist the parties in reaching a fair division of assets. For instance, in relationships where one party has made financial contributions and the other has contributed as a homemaker or primary carer of children, the court often considers it necessary to adjust property interests to achieve fairness.

The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) recognises that parties in a relationship contribute in various ways, and if the legal ownership of property does not reflect the actual contributions made by both parties, it may be just and equitable to adjust the property rights to ensure a fair outcome. This becomes particularly important in long-term relationships where financial and non-financial resources have been pooled together.

Practical Application

For example, in a marriage where both parties have jointly purchased a family home, and one spouse contributed financially while the other contributed non-financially by maintaining the home and raising children, the court will often find it just and equitable to adjust the property division. Even if the property is legally owned by one party, the other party’s non-financial contributions may justify a redistribution of assets.

If the court finds that an adjustment is necessary to achieve a fair division of property, it will then move on to assess the contributions of each party and how those contributions should impact the final division.

Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52 – A Landmark Case

In Stanford, the High Court considered a scenario in which the husband and wife had been married for over 40 years. Due to illness, the wife moved into a nursing home, and her daughter applied on her behalf for a property settlement. The court found that although the marriage had effectively ended, the couple had always kept their finances largely separate, and the wife’s future needs were already being met through her care arrangements. As a result, the High Court ruled that it was not just and equitable to adjust the property interests between the husband and wife.

This decision emphasized that courts must carefully evaluate the necessity of making adjustments, even in long-term marriages, and that separation alone is not enough to justify dividing property. The decision to intervene must be based on whether fairness requires an adjustment to the current ownership of assets.

Determining the Threshold for a Just and Equitable Adjustment

The just and equitable test serves as a threshold question. If the court finds that no adjustment is necessary because the current distribution of property is already fair, the property settlement process may end at this point. However, if the court concludes that adjusting the property interests is required, it will proceed to the next steps: assessing contributions, evaluating future needs, and ensuring an equitable outcome.

Practical Example: Application in Real Estate and Superannuation

Let’s consider a typical scenario:

A couple has been married for 15 years and owns a family home worth $800,000, with a mortgage of $200,000. The wife has a superannuation balance of $120,000, and the husband’s super is worth $200,000.
During the marriage, the wife was the primary caregiver for the couple’s two children, while the husband earned a higher income.
At separation, the court first considers whether it is just and equitable to alter the existing ownership of the home and superannuation. Given the length of the marriage, the significant financial and non-financial contributions of both parties, and the joint nature of the property, the court would likely find it just and equitable to divide the property pool.

In this case, the court would proceed to the next step: assessing how much each party contributed to the acquisition and maintenance of the assets.

Step 3: Examine and Assess the Contributions Made by Each Party During the Relationship

After determining that it is just and equitable to adjust the property interests, the next critical step in a separation settlement is to examine and assess the contributions made by each party during the relationship. The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requires the court to consider both financial and non-financial contributions in property settlements, ensuring that all types of contributions, including homemaking and parenting, are fairly recognized and reflected in the division of assets.

Types of Contributions

Contributions are broadly categorized into three types:

Financial Contributions
Non-Financial Contributions

Each type of contribution is considered equally important, but the weight given to each may differ depending on the specific circumstances of the relationship.

1. Financial Contributions

Financial contributions include direct monetary inputs into the relationship or acquisition of property. These contributions can take several forms:

Earnings: Salary or wages earned by one or both parties that were used to support the family, pay off mortgages, or purchase assets like the family home, cars, or investments.
Savings and Investments: Money saved or invested during the relationship, including bank accounts, shares, and bonds.
Inheritances and Gifts: Inheritances received by one party during the relationship, which may have been used to acquire property or settle debts.
Pre-relationship Contributions: Financial contributions made before the relationship that were used to acquire assets that became part of the shared property pool, such as a home or business.

Example: Financial Contributions

In Bremner & Bremner [2005] FamCA 123, the husband contributed a significant sum of money through an inheritance that was used to purchase a family home. His financial contributions were assessed as being 60% of the total asset pool, reflecting the importance of his substantial monetary input. However, the court balanced this with the wife’s non-financial contributions as a homemaker and primary carer of the children.

Financial contributions tend to be straightforward, but non-financial and homemaker contributions are often more nuanced and require deeper assessment.

2. Non-Financial Contributions

Non-financial contributions are those that do not involve direct monetary inputs but still add significant value to the relationship and the couple’s assets. Examples of non-financial contributions include:

Home Improvements: Labor and effort put into maintaining, renovating, or improving the family home or investment properties.
Managing Family Investments: Efforts to manage and maintain investments or business interests, even if the person is not earning an income from them.
Supporting a Partner’s Career: Providing support to a partner while they pursue their career, such as taking care of household responsibilities so the other party can focus on work.

Non-financial contributions often enhance the value of property or assets and are just as important as financial contributions in the eyes of the court.

Example: Non-Financial Contributions in Home Renovation

In Pierce & Pierce [2010] FamCA 429, the wife did not contribute financially to the purchase of the family home but undertook extensive renovations over several years, which significantly increased the property’s value. The court recognized these non-financial contributions as valuable and awarded her a greater share of the family home to reflect her effort and the increase in its value.

This case illustrates how non-financial contributions, such as physical labor or managing family projects, are factored into property settlements, even if the party did not make direct financial investments.

3. Contributions as a Homemaker or Parent

The Family Law Act explicitly recognizes contributions as a homemaker or parent as equally important to financial contributions. This includes the role of raising children, managing household tasks, and providing emotional and logistical support to the family.

In many relationships, one party may have sacrificed career opportunities or earning potential to care for children or maintain the household. These contributions are especially significant in long-term relationships or when children are involved, as they allow the other party to pursue a career or build wealth while one person assumes primary responsibility for domestic duties.

Example: Homemaker and Parenting Contributions

In Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21, the wife was the primary homemaker and carer of the couple’s children, while the husband was the primary breadwinner. The High Court ruled that her contributions as a homemaker and mother were not to be regarded as secondary to her husband’s financial contributions. Her efforts in managing the household and caring for the children were considered equally significant, and she was awarded a fair share of the property based on these contributions.

This principle was reinforced in Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52, where the court recognized that a homemaker’s contributions, including non-financial support and parenting duties, have significant value in determining the division of property.

Assessing the Weight of Contributions

The weight given to each type of contribution depends on the facts of the case. In relationships where both parties worked and contributed financially, the court might assess contributions more equally. However, where one party was primarily responsible for financial contributions and the other for homemaking, the court must carefully balance the two.

Example: Balancing Financial and Non-Financial Contributions

In Kennon v Kennon [1997] FamCA 27, the wife made significant non-financial contributions by caring for the couple’s children and maintaining the household. Meanwhile, the husband had made large financial contributions through his business income. The court found that both types of contributions were equally important and divided the property accordingly. The wife’s non-financial contributions, particularly in a long-term marriage with children, were given significant weight.

Pre- and Post-Separation Contributions

The court also considers contributions made before the relationship began, as well as contributions made after separation. Pre-relationship contributions, such as owning property or assets before marriage, are given weight but may diminish in significance the longer the relationship lasts. Conversely, post-separation contributions, such as continuing to pay the mortgage or maintain the family home after the parties have separated, are also considered.

Example: Post-Separation Contributions

In Waters & Jurek [2010] FamCA 432, the husband continued to make mortgage payments on the family home after separation. The court gave him credit for these contributions and adjusted the property settlement to reflect his efforts in maintaining the family’s financial obligations after the breakdown of the relationship.

Contributions in Short vs. Long-Term Relationships

The court also considers the length of the relationship when assessing contributions. In shorter relationships, each party may be more likely to retain what they brought into the relationship, especially if finances were kept largely separate. In contrast, in long-term relationships where financial and non-financial resources have been pooled over many years, the court tends to take a more holistic approach, recognizing the joint nature of the parties’ contributions.

Example: Contributions in a Short Relationship

In Farley & Farley [2011] FamCA 981, the couple was married for a short period, and both had kept their finances largely separate. The court awarded each party the property they had brought into the relationship, recognizing that no significant joint contributions had been made.

In contrast, in Kennon v Spry [2008] HCA 56, the couple had been in a long-term relationship, and despite the husband’s financial dominance, the wife’s non-financial contributions over the years were given significant weight in the property division.

Step 4: Assess Each Party’s Future Needs

Once the court has assessed the contributions of each party to the relationship, it moves on to evaluate their future needs. This step is crucial in ensuring that the property settlement is not only reflective of the past contributions but also addresses the ongoing financial circumstances and requirements of each party after the separation. The aim is to provide a settlement that allows both parties to move forward on a stable financial footing.

The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) outlines various factors that the court must consider when assessing future needs, which are listed under Section 75(2) for married couples and Section 90SF(3) for de facto relationships. These factors include age, health, income, earning capacity, financial resources, and care responsibilities for any children.

Key Factors in Assessing Future Needs

1. Age and Health

The age and health of each party are significant factors in determining their future financial needs. Older parties nearing retirement or those with health conditions that limit their ability to work are more likely to receive a larger share of the property pool to compensate for their reduced earning capacity and increased medical or living expenses.

Example: Age and Health Consideration

In Russell v Russell [1999] FamCA 1875, the wife was in her late 50s and suffered from chronic health issues that limited her ability to work. The court awarded her a larger share of the property pool, recognizing that her age and health made it difficult for her to secure employment and support herself in the future.

Similarly, a younger, healthy party with a longer working life ahead of them may not need as large a share of the property, as they are more likely to be able to support themselves financially through employment.

2. Income and Earning Capacity

The court considers the earning capacity of each party and whether there is a significant disparity in their ability to generate income in the future. This includes both current employment status and the potential for future income based on factors such as education, skills, work experience, and the likelihood of re-entering the workforce.

Example: Disparity in Earning Capacity

In C & B [2005] FamCA 94, the wife had left the workforce to care for the couple’s children and had not worked for several years, significantly reducing her earning capacity. Meanwhile, the husband had continued working and had a high-paying job. The court acknowledged the disparity in their future income and awarded the wife a larger share of the property pool to ensure she had financial support while she re-entered the workforce.

If one party has sacrificed career progression or work opportunities to support the family or care for children, the court may compensate for this lost earning potential by awarding them a larger share of the assets.

3. Care of Children

If one party has primary care of the children after separation, their future financial needs are likely to be greater, as they will need more resources to provide for the children’s living expenses, education, and general welfare. The court will also consider the fact that the primary carer may have reduced employment prospects due to their caregiving responsibilities.

Example: Care Responsibilities for Children

In McCulough v McCulough [2006] FamCA 840, the wife was awarded a larger share of the tangible assets because she had primary responsibility for the couple’s two children. The court recognized that her ongoing role as the primary caregiver limited her ability to work full-time and that she required additional financial resources to support the children’s needs.

Even where child support is payable, the court may still adjust the property division to ensure that the primary caregiver has enough resources to provide for the children’s day-to-day needs.

4. Financial Resources and Access to Superannuation

The court also evaluates each party’s existing financial resources, including superannuation. If one party has significant superannuation savings or other financial resources (such as trust income or investments), they may receive a smaller share of the remaining assets, as they are better positioned to support themselves financially in the future.

Example: Superannuation as a Future Resource

In Coghlan v Coghlan [2005] FamCA 429, the husband had a large superannuation balance, which was expected to provide him with significant retirement income. The wife, on the other hand, had very little superannuation due to her years spent out of the workforce caring for the children. The court compensated for this disparity by awarding the wife a greater share of the property pool to ensure she had sufficient financial security until she could access her superannuation.

The court might split superannuation, but as it is inaccessible until retirement, one party may receive more immediate assets, like cash or property, to meet their short-term needs.

5. Standard of Living

The court considers the standard of living that each party enjoyed during the relationship and whether one party will face a significant drop in their standard of living after separation. Although the court does not guarantee the preservation of the same standard of living, it strives to avoid undue hardship for either party, particularly if one party has limited income-earning capacity.

How the Court Balances Future Needs

The court evaluates each party’s future needs on a case-by-case basis and adjusts the property settlement accordingly. The goal is to ensure that the division of assets is fair, not only in light of past contributions but also considering what each party will require to maintain a reasonable quality of life post-separation.

Example: Balancing Future Needs

In Farley & Farley [2011] FamCA 981, the husband had a successful business, and the wife had not worked for most of their marriage due to raising their children. The court found that the wife’s future needs, particularly her lower earning capacity and her role as the primary caregiver, justified a larger share of the property pool. The husband, who had a higher income and more financial resources, received less.

Post-Separation Circumstances

The court also considers post-separation circumstances when assessing future needs. For example, if one party continues to care for the children or maintains the family home after separation, the court may award them more assets to ensure they can meet these ongoing responsibilities.

Adjustment of the Property Pool Based on Future Needs

Once the court has considered all relevant factors, it may adjust the property division to account for any disparity in the parties’ future needs. This can result in one party receiving a larger share of the property pool to ensure they have adequate resources moving forward. The court’s aim is not necessarily to create absolute equality but to ensure fairness based on each party’s unique situation.

Example: Future Needs Adjustment

In Clauson & Clauson [1995] FamCA 10, the wife’s lower earning capacity and the fact that she had primary care of the children meant she received an adjustment in her favor. The court awarded her a greater portion of the family home and other tangible assets, while the husband retained more of the superannuation and investments.

Step 5: Reassess Whether the Proposed Division of Property Is Fair and Equitable

The final step in the five-step process of property settlement is to reassess whether the proposed division of property is fair and equitable. After considering the assets available, the contributions of each party, and their future needs, the court must take a step back to ensure that the overall division of property is just and reasonable under the circumstances.

This step acts as a final check to confirm that the division reflects both parties’ contributions and adequately addresses their financial future. The court looks at the big picture and asks whether the proposed property settlement is fair in light of all the factors considered throughout the process.

What Does ‘Fair and Equitable’ Mean?

In property settlements, “fair and equitable” does not necessarily mean equal. The court’s goal is to achieve a division that is fair, based on the specific circumstances of the relationship, rather than adhering to a strict 50/50 split. What is considered fair will vary depending on:

The length of the relationship
The nature of the contributions each party made (financial and non-financial)
The future needs of each party
The overall financial situation of both parties at the time of separation

The Role of Section 79 of the Family Law Act

Section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) empowers the court to make orders for the alteration of property interests, but only if it is just and equitable to do so. The court must assess the proposed settlement holistically to determine whether it achieves a fair outcome.

In Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52, the High Court reaffirmed the importance of the just and equitable test, making it clear that even after considering contributions and future needs, the court must review whether altering property interests is appropriate based on the overall circumstances of the case.

When Might a Settlement Be Considered Unfair?

A proposed division of property may be deemed unfair if it disproportionately benefits one party at the expense of the other, particularly if it fails to reflect non-financial contributions or ignores significant future needs, such as health issues or child-rearing responsibilities. For example, a settlement that leaves one party financially disadvantaged because of their reduced earning capacity may require adjustment to achieve fairness.

Example: Balancing Non-Financial Contributions

In Kennon v Kennon [1997] FamCA 27, the wife made significant non-financial contributions by caring for the children and managing the household, while the husband made large financial contributions. Although the proposed division initially favored the husband due to his greater financial input, the court reassessed the split to ensure that the wife’s non-financial contributions were given appropriate weight. The final division was adjusted to award her a larger share of the property.

Adjustments for Fairness

If, after reviewing the proposed division, the court finds that the settlement does not achieve fairness, it may adjust the division of assets. These adjustments can be made to account for disparities in earning capacity, caregiving responsibilities, or contributions that were not adequately recognized in the initial division.

Example: Adjustments for Future Needs

In Clauson & Clauson [1995] FamCA 10, the wife’s future needs, particularly her role as the primary caregiver for the children and her limited future earning capacity, led the court to award her a greater share of the property pool. The court adjusted the original settlement proposal, giving the wife more immediate assets to ensure she could provide for herself and the children, while the husband retained more of the superannuation.

The Role of Superannuation in Achieving Fairness

In many cases, particularly where one party has accumulated significantly more superannuation than the other, adjustments may be necessary to ensure fairness. The court may order a superannuation split to equalize the financial resources available to each party in retirement. However, since superannuation is typically inaccessible until retirement, the court may balance the division by awarding one party more tangible assets, such as property or cash, to ensure they have sufficient financial resources in the immediate term.

Example: Superannuation Adjustment

In Coghlan v Coghlan [2005] FamCA 429, the husband had a larger superannuation balance due to his continued employment, while the wife had less superannuation as a result of years spent raising the children. The court split the superannuation and awarded the wife a greater share of the couple’s other assets, such as the family home, to ensure she had financial security in the short term while waiting for her superannuation to become accessible.

Reassessing the Overall Property Mix

The court also considers the mix of assets—including superannuation, real estate, and cash—to ensure that the settlement is not only fair but practical. For instance, one party may receive a larger share of superannuation, while the other receives more liquid assets like cash or property, depending on their immediate financial needs.

In Bateman & Gaffney [2010] FMCAfam 103, both parties expressed a desire to retain the family home, but due to their financial circumstances, the court decided it was just and equitable to award the property to one party while compensating the other with cash and other assets. This ensured that both parties received a fair division, even if they did not retain the specific assets they had hoped for.

Reviewing the Balance of Needs and Contributions

At this stage, the court takes a step back to balance past contributions with future needs. This holistic review ensures that no party is left financially vulnerable, particularly in cases where one party has sacrificed career opportunities to care for children or where one party has significant health issues or other financial limitations. The court’s goal is to avoid undue hardship for either party while recognizing the contributions each has made.

Conclusion: Ensuring Fairness in Property Settlements Entitlements

As you move forward in negotiating your property settlement (click here for tips on negotiation a property settlement), understanding the five-step process outlined by the Family Court is crucial. These steps provide the legal framework for ensuring that the division of assets, liabilities, and financial resources is both fair and equitable. While the court can make a determination if required, many couples successfully negotiate settlements outside of court, either through direct negotiation, mediation, or with the assistance of legal professionals.

The five-step process for determining what each party is entitled to in a separation aims to ensure a fair and equitable division of property, reflecting the individual circumstances of both parties. By carefully identifying and valuing all assets and liabilities, assessing whether adjustments to property ownership are necessary, evaluating contributions (both financial and non-financial), and considering each party’s future needs, the Family Court strives to reach a balanced outcome that is just for both parties.

At the heart of this process is the recognition that contributions come in many forms, from financial inputs to the essential roles of homemaking and parenting, and these must all be weighed accordingly. The court’s final review ensures that the proposed division not only reflects past contributions but also addresses the ongoing financial realities of life after separation. Ultimately, the process is designed to provide both parties with a fair chance to move forward, securing a just and equitable resolution based on their unique situation.

What Am I Entitled To In A Separation? – Australia