Property Settlement Lawyers, Brisbane
The framework for dividing property changed on 10 June 2025. Advice given before that date, and most of what is written online, describes a process that no longer applies.
Property settlement under the Family Law Act applies to married and de facto couples alike. The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 took effect on 10 June 2025 and codified the framework the courts apply, bringing the considerations into one place and requiring the economic effect of family violence to be taken into account. There is no starting presumption that property is divided equally.
The framework that now applies
Until June 2025 the approach courts took to dividing property was drawn from case law rather than set out in the Act. The Family Law Amendment Act 2024, which took effect on 10 June 2025, codified it. The steps are broadly familiar — identify the property and the liabilities, assess what each person contributed, consider each person’s current and future circumstances, and ask whether the result is just and equitable — but they are now written into the statute, and the provision numbering has changed.
Two points follow. The first is practical: material written before June 2025, including a great deal of what is still online, describes the previous structure. The second is that the reform was not merely cosmetic. Considerations that were previously scattered are now co-located, the treatment of liabilities is addressed expressly, and the way courts deal with property that has been wasted or dissipated has changed.
What has not changed is that there is no presumption of an equal division. A fifty-fifty split is a common outcome in long relationships with similar contributions, but it is an outcome, not a starting point, and assuming it is the beginning of most bad settlements.
The economic effect of family violence must now be considered
The most significant change in the 2025 reforms is that the courts must consider the economic effect of family violence where it is relevant, both in assessing contributions and in assessing a person’s current and future circumstances. The definition of family violence was also amended to recognise economic and financial abuse more clearly, with a stand-alone provision and expanded examples.
Before the reform, the effect of violence on contributions was dealt with through case law, and it was argued relatively rarely and with difficulty. Bringing it into the statute changes what the material needs to look like. Financial control, denial of access to money, coerced borrowing and interference with a person’s capacity to earn are now matters the court is directed to consider rather than matters counsel must persuade it to consider.
If this describes your relationship, it is worth raising early. It affects what evidence is worth gathering, and evidence of financial control is easier to assemble while you still have access to accounts and documents.
Superannuation is property
Superannuation can be split between separating couples, and it is frequently the second largest asset after the family home. It is not simply cash — the value depends on the kind of fund, and a defined benefit interest is valued quite differently from an accumulation account. Obtaining a proper valuation matters, and it needs a specific information request to the fund.
A split requires either consent orders or a binding financial agreement; it cannot be done by private arrangement between the parties. Where one person has a substantially larger balance because the other took time out of work to care for children, superannuation is often where that imbalance is addressed.
Disclosure is a duty, not a courtesy
Both parties have a duty of full and frank disclosure of their financial circumstances. It covers income, property, superannuation, interests in trusts and companies, and disposals of property. It applies from the outset, including during negotiation before anything is filed, and it is ongoing.
Failing to disclose is a serious matter. It can result in costs orders, an agreement being set aside, and in the worst cases contempt. It is also self-defeating: an agreement reached on incomplete information is vulnerable, which means the party who concealed something has bought no security at all.
Time limits, and what to do first
The 2025 amendments renumbered provisions and changed the treatment of some issues, including add-backs. Section numbers are deliberately not reproduced here. Confirm the current provisions against the Federal Register of Legislation, and note that the amendments apply to proceedings not finally determined before 10 June 2025 as well as to new ones. See sources 1–3.