High net worth property settlements follow the same legal framework as any other property matter under the Family Law Act 1975 — but the practical complexity is of a different order. When the asset pool involves business interests, trusts, investment portfolios, real estate across multiple jurisdictions, or illiquid assets, the process of identifying, valuing, and dividing property requires a level of forensic and legal expertise that straightforward residential property settlements simply don’t demand.
The four-step process
The Family Court applies a four-step process to all property settlements, regardless of the size of the asset pool:
• Step 1 — Identify and value all assets, liabilities, and financial resources held by either party or both parties, including superannuation, interests in trusts, and business shareholdings
• Step 2 — Assess the contributions of each party, both financial (direct and indirect) and non-financial (homemaking, parenting)
• Step 3 — Assess future needs, including income-earning capacity, age, health, and the care of children
• Step 4 — Determine whether the proposed outcome is just and equitable in all the circumstances
What makes high net worth matters different
In high net worth matters, Step 1 — identifying and valuing the asset pool — is often where the greatest contest lies. Complex asset structures are frequently used in legitimate tax and estate planning, but they can also create genuine disputes about what is actually available for division. The court has broad discretion under sections 79 and 90SM of the Family Law Act to look through corporate and trust structures and include assets that are effectively controlled by or available to a party, even if not legally held in their name.
Specialist valuers — accountants, business valuers, and forensic financial experts — are routinely engaged in these matters. The accuracy of valuations can have a far larger dollar impact than the percentage split ultimately ordered by the court.
Contribution weighting in large asset pools
Where one party entered the relationship with substantial pre-existing assets or received a significant inheritance, the court may apply greater weighting to that party’s initial contributions. This can shift the percentage outcome meaningfully. Conversely, where a long marriage is involved, and one party has been the primary carer while the other built a business, the court will assess both contributions as significant regardless of their source.
Questions to consider
• Has a full and frank disclosure of all assets, liabilities, and financial resources been made by both parties — including interests in trusts, companies, and overseas holdings?
• Are there asset structures — discretionary trusts, family companies, self-managed superannuation funds — that may require a specialist forensic accountant to properly value and attribute?
• Were there significant pre-relationship assets or inheritances on either side that may affect the contribution assessment and the ultimate percentage division?