A 70/30 divorce settlement in Australia refers to an unequal division of marital property where one party receives 70% of the asset pool and the other 30%. Contrary to popular belief, there is no automatic 50/50 division rule in Australian family law. Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), property settlements are determined by what is “just and equitable” — not equal.
The Family Court or Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) applies a structured four-step test to assess contributions, current circumstances, and future needs. This process ensures that every division — whether 50/50, 60/40, or 70/30 — is based on law and evidence, not assumptions or gender bias.
Legal Framework for Property Division Under the Family Law Act
Property division in Australia is governed by sections 79 (married couples) and 90SM (de facto relationships) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
These provisions empower the Court to alter property interests where it is satisfied that doing so is just and equitable.
The assessment process generally follows four legal steps established in Hickey v Hickey (2003) FLC 93-143 and subsequent authorities:
- Identify and value the asset pool — including property, investments, vehicles, superannuation, and debts.
- Assess contributions — both financial and non-financial, such as homemaking, parenting, and support in building wealth.
- Consider future needs factors under section 75(2), such as age, health, income disparity, care of children, and earning capacity.
- Ensure the outcome is just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.
Those seeking advice on their entitlements can benefit from finding a good family lawyer early to ensure proper asset valuation and compliance with disclosure obligations.
When Does a 70/30 Divorce Settlement Occur?
A 70/30 divorce settlement occurs in Australia when the evidence before the court shows that an equal division of property would not be fair or reflective of each party’s real contributions and future needs.
The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requires every property settlement to be “just and equitable,” not necessarily equal. Courts award a 70/30 split only in situations where one spouse’s circumstances justify a substantially larger share of the asset pool.
Typically, a 70/30 division may occur when:
- One party made significantly greater financial contributions — for example, by funding property purchases, managing investments, or bringing substantial pre-marital assets into the relationship.
- There is a clear disparity in earning capacity or future prospects, such as when one spouse has a high, stable income while the other has limited employment opportunities.
- The primary caregiver of children requires greater financial support to provide housing and stability after separation.
- Health issues or age affect one spouse’s financial independence, warranting a larger share for ongoing care and expenses.
- The marriage was relatively short and one partner contributed the majority of capital or income during that time.
In essence, a 70/30 division reflects a factual imbalance in financial and personal contributions — not a predetermined formula. The Court arrives at this ratio only after a comprehensive evaluation of the couple’s assets, evidence, and statutory factors under sections 79 and 75(2) of the Family Law Act.
Such orders aim to ensure that both parties leave the relationship on a footing that is equitable, sustainable, and consistent with Australian family law principles.
70/30 vs 50/50 Property Settlements in Australian Divorce
While 50/50 splits are often seen in longer marriages where contributions were broadly equal, 70/30 outcomes arise when evidence demonstrates significant imbalance.
Courts consistently emphasise that equality is not a legal presumption — it is merely a starting point for analysis.
For instance:
- In a long marriage with shared parenting, a 50/50 division is likely.
- In a short marriage where one party contributed most of the finances, 70/30 or even 80/20 may be justified.
- In medium-term relationships, the outcome often falls between 55/45 and 65/35.
Each outcome is case-specific and supported by judicial reasoning in accordance with equity principles.
Legal Grounds for Unequal Asset Distribution
The Family Law Act provides the statutory basis for unequal division through section 75(2), which lists factors guiding judicial discretion.
These include:
- Income and earning capacity differences between the parties;
- Age and health, affecting each party’s ability to support themselves;
- Care of children under 18 years;
- Commitments to support others (e.g., dependents);
- The standard of living each can reasonably maintain;
- Eligibility for government benefits or pensions; and
- Any other circumstance the Court deems relevant.
Judges apply these factors holistically to ensure that outcomes remain fair, not formulaic.
A 70/30 split may result where these statutory considerations significantly favour one party.
How Courts Calculate a 70/30 Division in Practice
Determining whether a 70/30 outcome is appropriate requires evidence. Courts typically rely on sworn financial statements, expert property valuations, tax records, and testimony outlining household or business contributions.
A typical judicial reasoning process might look like this:
- The husband’s direct financial contribution (e.g., property acquisition, mortgage payments) accounts for the majority of the wealth.
- The wife’s non-financial contribution as homemaker and primary carer is acknowledged but valued less heavily in monetary terms.
- Her limited earning capacity and childcare responsibilities justify an additional percentage adjustment in her favour.
- After weighing these factors, the Court determines that a 70/30 division best represents fairness in the circumstances.
This method is underpinned by precedent-based reasoning, ensuring transparency and consistency across cases.
Superannuation in a 70/30 Divorce Settlement
Superannuation is treated as property under Australian law and must be included in the total asset pool.
In a 70/30 division, the Court may order superannuation splitting orders to ensure an equitable outcome.
The process is governed by:
- Part VIIIB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth); and
- The Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001.
Superannuation may be adjusted by value or transferred in part to the other party’s fund, ensuring parity in long-term financial stability — particularly where one spouse has a substantially larger retirement balance.
Rights and Protections for the Lower-Income Spouse
Where a 70/30 division leaves one spouse with a smaller share, the law provides additional mechanisms to safeguard fairness, including:
- Spousal maintenance orders under section 72;
- Access to superannuation splitting or offset arrangements; and
- Adjustments based on childcare or medical responsibilities.
The Court’s approach ensures that even the financially weaker party can maintain a reasonable standard of living post-settlement, consistent with the principles of equity and social justice underlying Australian family law.
Can a 70/30 Divorce Settlement Be Challenged?
Yes, but only under specific and limited grounds. A final property settlement can be set aside under section 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) if:
- There was fraud, misrepresentation, or non-disclosure of assets;
- New evidence arises that materially affects the outcome;
- An impracticable order causes hardship; or
- Exceptional circumstances justify intervention to prevent injustice.
Otherwise, a 70/30 order is final and legally binding once issued by the Family Court.
Financial Impact of a 70/30 Settlement for Primary Caregivers
For the spouse with primary care of children, a 70/30 settlement can provide vital financial support in meeting housing and daily expenses. The courts recognise the economic disadvantage that often accompanies full-time caregiving — particularly where re-entry into the workforce is delayed.
Conversely, for the higher-income spouse, retaining 70% of assets often reflects business or investment continuity necessary for future income generation. This balance between need and capacity forms the core of equitable reasoning in family law.
FAQs About 70/30 Divorce Settlement in Australia
Before finalising property orders, many separating couples seek clarity on how courts interpret 70/30 divisions. Below are answers to the most frequent queries drawn from Google’s user data.
Is a 70/30 Property Division Common in Australian Divorces?
No. A 70/30 division is not common and generally reserved for cases where one party’s contribution or needs clearly outweigh the other’s. Most settlements fall between 50/50 and 60/40, depending on evidence.
What Legal Grounds Allow a 70/30 Split?
The Court relies on sections 79 and 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which require consideration of both financial and non-financial contributions, future needs, and overall fairness.
Can Superannuation Be Divided in a 70/30 Settlement?
Yes. Superannuation forms part of the total property pool and may be split proportionally, transferred, or offset against other assets through a superannuation splitting order.
Can a 70/30 Divorce Settlement Be Overturned?
Only in rare circumstances, such as fraud, duress, or material non-disclosure. Once finalised, property orders are binding and enforceable.
What Happens to the Lower-Income Spouse in a 70/30 Division?
Courts often offset lower financial shares with maintenance rights, superannuation adjustments, or favourable child-care expense allocations to prevent economic disadvantage.
Conclusion
A 70/30 divorce settlement in Australia represents the application of equity, not arithmetic. It acknowledges that each partner’s financial, emotional, and practical contributions differ and that fairness sometimes demands an unequal outcome.
Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the guiding principle is justice — ensuring both parties emerge from separation with a result that reflects their real circumstances and respects the integrity of the law. For tailored guidance on navigating such property divisions, visit LegalFinda — Australia’s trusted platform for connecting with experienced family lawyers who specialise in equitable asset settlements.
