Yes — but enforcing that inclusion is a different question entirely. The Family Court of Australia has jurisdiction over the worldwide assets of the parties to a marriage or de facto relationship, and it will not confine itself to Australian-held property simply because assets happen to sit in another country. The practical challenge lies in identifying those assets, obtaining proper valuations, and — if orders are made — ensuring they are actually enforceable against property that exists beyond Australian borders.
Jurisdiction: broad in theory, complex in practice
Under section 79 of the Family Law Act, the court’s power to alter property interests extends to property wherever it is situated. This means foreign real estate, offshore bank accounts, foreign company shareholdings, and overseas superannuation-equivalent assets are all, in principle, within scope. The court will generally include known foreign assets in the global asset pool and factor them into the percentage division, even where it cannot directly order their transfer.
Disclosure obligations
Both parties to a family law property settlement are under a duty of full and frank financial disclosure. This obligation expressly extends to overseas assets. A party that fails to disclose foreign property — whether through omission or deliberate concealment — risks serious consequences, including adverse inferences being drawn by the court, costs orders, and potential contempt proceedings. Where concealment is suspected, forensic accountants and international asset tracing specialists may be engaged.
The enforcement gap
The practical limitation is enforcement. An Australian family court order does not automatically bind courts in other countries. Where a party refuses to comply with an order relating to foreign property, the other party may need to commence separate enforcement proceedings in the relevant overseas jurisdiction — which can be costly and, in some countries, ineffective. This risk should be factored into settlement strategy: in some circumstances, adjusting the Australian asset division to account for the other party’s foreign holdings — rather than chasing those assets directly — may be the more commercially rational outcome.
Questions to consider
• Has full and frank disclosure been made of all overseas assets — real property, bank accounts, investment portfolios, and interests in foreign companies or trusts? What evidence exists if disclosure is suspected to be incomplete?
• In which country or countries are the foreign assets held, and what is the likelihood that an Australian family court order could be recognised and enforced in those jurisdictions?
• Is the better strategy to pursue the foreign assets directly, or to seek an adjustment in the division of Australian assets that reflects the other party’s offshore holdings?