Understanding a 70/30 Property Settlement: When and Why It Applies
By Aryan Jani 
Updated: 29 August 2025 · Read time: 8 minutes
A 70/30 property settlement is a division of assets where one party receives 70% of the shared asset pool and the other receives 30%. While equal (50/50) splits are often presumed to be fair, many separations (both marriages and de-facto relationships) warrant a more nuanced approach.
At Movement Legal, we have worked with many clients navigating complex financial and personal circumstances. In our experience, a 70/30 division is not uncommon and is often necessary to achieve a just and equitable outcome.
This article explains how and when such a division might be applied, the legal processes involved, and what factors courts (or parties through negotiation) consider when determining a significant departure from an equal split.
Understanding the 70/30 Divorce Settlement
A 70/30 property settlement divides the marital asset pool so that one party receives 70 percent of the assets, and the other 30 percent. This form of division can be reached through mutual agreement or determined by court order, depending on the parties' circumstances and the nature of the dispute.
The law governing property settlement in Australia is not formulaic. Instead, the court takes a broad and discretionary approach. A 70/30 division may be appropriate where one spouse has made significantly greater contributions (financial or non-financial) or where one party has markedly greater future financial needs.
In our work, we often encounter this form of settlement in long-term relationships, where one party has taken primary responsibility for homemaking and parenting, or where illness, age, or a lack of recent work experience means they are at a clear disadvantage post-separation.
Legal Principles Behind Unequal Division
The legal foundation for a 70/30 division lies in the four-step process the Australian Family Law system follow:
- Identify and value the property pool
This step involves identifying and valuing all assets and liabilities owned by either or both parties. Property may include financial assets such as wages, real estate, savings, cryptocurrency, and superannuation, as well as liabilities such as mortgages, personal loans, and other debts.
- Assess the contributions of each party
Both financial and non-financial contributions are given weight by the court. Financial contributions typically include income, wages or any property. Non-financial contributions encompass unpaid work, including domestic duties, caregiving responsibilities, and the maintenance or improvement of family assets.
- Consider each party’s future needs
This involves assessing the future needs of each party, including their respective earning capacities, age, health, and any ongoing responsibilities arising from the relationship (such as the care of children or maintenance of property).
These considerations are particularly important where there is a significant disparity in income or where one party assumes greater caregiving responsibilities post-separation.
- Determine what is just and equitable in all the circumstances
This process allows the court to depart from an equal division of assets where fairness demands it. The aim is not to penalise either party, but to ensure that the outcome reflects the realities of the relationship and supports both individuals in achieving financial independence post-separation.
After considering all relevant factors, the court will determine a property settlement that is just and equitable in the circumstances. Importantly, there is no legal presumption of a 50/50 split, each case is assessed on its unique facts.
Factors Influencing a 70/30 Divorce Settlement
A 70/30 property settlement is generally underpinned by a range of legal and factual considerations. In our experience, the following factors are commonly central to justifying a significant departure from an equal split:
Disparities in income and earning capacity
Where there is a significant difference in the current or future earning potential of each party, the court may award a greater share of the asset pool to the financially disadvantaged spouse. This may be due to one party having forgone career advancement during the relationship or lacking recent work experience. The law recognises that economic disparity after separation can have long-term consequences, and a 70/30 split may be appropriate to provide a more secure financial footing for the lower-earning spouse.
Contributions to the marriage (both financial and non-financial)
The court will evaluate the contributions made by each party throughout the relationship. This includes direct financial input, such as income and property acquisitions, as well as indirect or non-financial contributions, such as raising children, performing domestic duties, or supporting the other party’s career. These efforts, though not always measurable in financial terms, are given considerable weight and may justify an unequal division of property when one party’s contributions have been particularly significant or sustained.
Future needs of each party
The court must also consider what each party will require as they move forward, and without the financial security of the relationship. This includes factors such as health, age, ability to earn an income, and ongoing responsibilities, such as caring for children. A 70/30 split may reflect the need to provide additional resources to the party who will bear the greater burden of future expenses or who faces financial disadvantage due to age, illness, or limited employment opportunities.
Duration of the relationship
Longer relationships often involve deeper interdependence, more complex financial arrangements, and greater opportunity for one party to have made significant sacrifices. In such cases, a court may be more inclined to consider an unequal division of assets, particularly where one party has taken on a supportive role (financially or otherwise) over an extended period. The length of the marriage or de facto relationship plays a key role in assessing the overall contributions and entitlements of each party.
Care of any dependent children
Ongoing parental responsibilities can significantly affect a person’s ability to work, earn income, or rebuild financially after separation. Where one party will have primary care of children, the court will take this into account when determining a fair property division. In many cases, this factor alone can warrant a more substantial share of the asset pool to help ensure stability and financial security for both the parent and the children.
Case Studies of 70/30 Divorce Settlements
While each property settlement is determined on its individual facts, past decisions can help illustrate the types of circumstances in which a 70/30 division may be considered just and equitable. The following examples, illustrate how these principles are applied in practice:
Disparity in Contributions Over a Long Marriage - RWW v JWW
In RWW v JWW [2006] FamCA 1288, the court considered a 33-year marriage during which the couple raised two children and operated several family businesses. Despite some involvement from both parties, the court found that the wife was the primary contributor to both the business and domestic spheres, while the husband had largely withdrawn from paid work and family responsibilities early in the marriage.
Based on extensive evidence from friends, employees, and associates, the court concluded that the wife’s contributions far exceeded those of the husband, and a 70/30 division of the asset pool in her favour was found to be just and equitable.
Property Division Reflecting Homemaker Contributions and Family Violence - Geiger & Geiger
In Geiger & Geiger [2025] FedCFamC2F 34, the court considered both parenting and property matters after a long-term relationship with one child. The asset pool was modest, but the wife had been the primary homemaker and parent, and would continue caring for the child. The court found that the husband had committed family violence, which increased the burden of the wife’s contributions and warranted greater weight.
Considering these factors, along with the husband’s ability to earn income through retained business assets, the court found a 70/30 division in favour of the wife to be just and equitable.
How 70/30 Compares to Other Settlement Models
A 50/50 division is often seen in shorter marriages or relationships where both parties have made equal financial contributions and have comparable earning capacities. A 60/40 split may be more appropriate where there is some disparity in these areas, but not to the degree that would justify a more pronounced imbalance.
A 70/30 split represents a clear departure from equality. It recognises substantial differences in financial position, life circumstances, or contributions to the relationship. In our experience, courts are willing to adopt this model where the evidence supports it, and we have consistently achieved these outcomes for clients when the facts warrant it.
Is a 70/30 Settlement Right for You?
Whether a 70/30 property settlement is appropriate in your case depends on a careful analysis of your financial circumstances, your contributions to the relationship, and your future needs. If you believe your situation involves a significant imbalance (whether due to career sacrifices, health, parenting duties, or financial disadvantage) this type of settlement may be worth pursuing.
At Movement Legal, we have guided many clients through this process. We understand the case law, the court’s approach, and the practical strategies needed to achieve a fair and sustainable outcome. If you’re facing a separation and uncertain about your entitlements, we invite you to speak with us.
A well-prepared settlement is not just about numbers, it’s about securing your future. We’re here to help.
