Written by Indy Morcombe
A recent decision of the Full Court in Charis [2026] FedCFamC1A 92 has reaffirmed an important principle in Australian family law. The fact that one person earns more money, or builds a highly successful business, does not automatically mean they will receive a larger share of the property pool after separation.
It is important to note that this was one of several grounds pursued on appeal. The husband also challenged the primary judge’s finding that his United States (‘US’) shares and stock options were property capable of being included in the property pool.
The Case
During the relationship, the husband co-founded a US company developing quantum computing technology. By the time the matter came to trial, his shares and stock were worth more than AUD $125 million.
The husband argued that he should receive a significantly greater share of the property pool because the company had experienced extraordinary growth after separation and that growth was largely due to his expertise and work.
The Full Court did not accept that argument.
Why Did The Court Reach That Conclusion?
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (‘the Court’) looks at the contributions made by both parties during the relationship. It is not simply a question of who earned the most or who created the most wealth.
The husband had made significant contributions to the company and its growth. However, the shares had been acquired during the relationship. During that time, the wife made substantial contributions as a homemaker and primary carer of the parties’ children. Those contributions allowed the husband to pursue his career and devote time to the business.
The Court also recognised that the success of the company could not be attributed solely to the husband. The growth of a successful business will generally involve the contribution of many people and other factors.
What About Exceptional Skills Or Business Ability?
A party may argue that their particular skills, expertise or business ability should result in them receiving a greater share of the property pool.
However, the Court has previously cautioned against treating “special contributions” as a separate basis for adjusting the parties’ property interests. Exceptional business skills or the generation of significant wealth do not, by themselves, justify a greater percentage.
The Charis decision reinforces this approach.
This does not mean that financial contributions are ignored. The Court considers the contributions made by both parties, including financial contributions, non-financial contributions, homemaking and parenting contributions.