What happens when all the assets were brought in by one party?: What a 2025 Full Court case teaches about family law property settlements
When couples separate, one of the most common and most emotionally charged questions is:
“If most of the money and property was already owned by one person, does the other person get anything?”
A recent Full Court decision, Voight & Zunino [2025] FedCFamC1A 201 provides some guidance, but it can’t necessarily be applied to all circumstances.
The case involved a seven-year de facto relationship, a farming business worth many millions of dollars, and a relationship where almost all of the capital sat in one party’s name.
The Court, on appeal, ordered a payment to the other party, but only to achieve 3% of the pool in their favour.
Here is why.
The story in simple terms
The couple lived together for approximately seven years on a large farming property. The land, the business and the equipment were all owned by the male partner. The female partner did not bring assets into the relationship.
She worked on the farm, helped run the household and supported the relationship. She was paid wages for much of the farm work she did. They never bought property together, never shared bank accounts and never jointly borrowed money.
When they separated, the farm and other assets were worth nearly $19 million.
The woman asked the Court for about $3 million.
The man said she should get nothing beyond the $300,000 he had already paid her during the court case.
The trial judge agreed with him and dismissed her claim entirely.
She appealed.
The Full Court’s key message: courts don’t just pick between two offers
The Full Court overturned the decision.
One of the most important things the judges said was this:
The Court is not limited to choosing between what each side asks for.
It must decide for itself what is just and equitable, even if neither party’s proposal is right.
In other words, the choice is not:
“Give her $3 million”, or
“Give her nothing”.
There is a whole range in between — and the Court is required to find the right place on that range.
Why she did not get a large percentage
Even though the Court said she should receive something, it was not a large share.
The judges looked at the economic reality of the relationship:
The man brought in all the land, business and capital.
The woman worked on the farm and in the home.
But she was paid a wage for much of that work.
They never pooled their money or jointly owned major assets.
The Court drew an important distinction:
Working in a partner’s business for pay is not the same as working for free or giving up your own financial future to build the other person’s wealth.
Because she was paid for much of her labour, the Court found that her work had largely already been financially recognised.
On that basis, the judges assessed her contribution-based entitlement at only 3% of the total property.
That may sound small and while it may feel unfair as the man had much greater capital wealth with which to support himself, the judgement reffered to principle that the adjustment process under s 90SM(5) is not legitimately used to socially engineer a satisfying outcome by evening up the parties’ financial positions (Kennon v Kennon [1997] FamCA 27; (1997) FLC 92-757 at 84,303).
Why the final figure was even lower
During the court case, the man had already been ordered to pay the woman $300,000.
The Full Court said that payment had to be taken into account.
Once that earlier payment was credited, her final net entitlement was about $297,000 — roughly 1.57% of the total pool.
The case was also interesting because it dealt with the characterisation of these payments, but that’s for another blog.
Why this outcome would be very different in other relationships
A crucial part of this case is what the parties did not do.
They did not:
buy assets together,
pool their incomes,
run joint bank accounts,
take on joint debts, or
have children together.
They lived together and worked together, but they did not merge their economic lives.
That is why the Court treated the wealth as essentially belonging to one person.
In many other relationships, the outcome would look very different.
Where couples:
buy a home together,
combine incomes,
raise children, or
one person gives up their career to care for the family,
In those cases, even if one person brought more money into the relationship at the start, courts often divide property far more evenly because both people have jointly created and sustained the life that produced the assets forming the pool.
So Voight & Zunino is not a “rule” about de facto relationships.
It is an example of how the law works where people live together without fully combining their financial lives. It also demonstrates that the Court is not there to just pick one person’s proposal over the other, it must make it’s own determination as to what a just and equitable outcome might be.