Contributions sit at the heart of family law property settlements. They’re easy to describe, but often difficult to measure. As a former family law lecturer once put it: a contribution is "everything from buying a house to vacuuming a room in it." Capturing that breadth—and applying it fairly—is one of the greatest challenges for practitioners and courts alike.
In this article, I’ll explore some of the key issues surrounding contributions, including financial and non-financial contributions, third party inputs, post-separation efforts, and the latest holistic approach taken by the courts, particularly post-Jabour.
What Is a Contribution?
Contributions are typically grouped into three categories:
- Financial Contributions: Direct financial inputs towards the acquisition, conservation, or improvement of property.
- Non-Financial Contributions: Labour contributions, management of assets, or improvement works.
- Homemaker and Parenting Contributions: Contributions to the welfare of the family as part of the broader social contract.
Each is significant. Raising a child or managing a home can be just as important as earning an income or paying a mortgage.
Alan and Betty: A Typical Illustration
Take the case of Alan and Betty: at the beginning of their relationship, Alan owns assets, principally a farm, worth $5 million. Over 25 years, Betty works alongside Alan on the farm, raises four children, and manages the household. Yet, by the time of separation, the asset pool, and its value, remains largely the same.
In such a case, Betty’s contributions—though non-financial—are substantial and enduring. They must be assessed against Alan’s original financial contribution without falling into the trap of overemphasising either side.
But on the other hand, Alan has initially contributed the entire value of the asset pool. How would you decide that matter?
Historical Approaches: From Norbis to Hickey and Beyond
Historically, cases like Norbis and Hickey structured contributions assessments around fairness and discretion, with the courts avoiding rigid mathematical formulas. Along the way, curiosities such as “negative contributions” (Kennon, Weir, Kowaliw) emerged, recognising that some conduct can diminish the value of contributions.
Earlier authorities like Zyk, Mallet, and Aleksovski laid the foundation for assessing when and how early contributions lose weight over time—a question that brings us to the idea of springboard effects and erosion.
The Springboard Doctrine and Erosion of Contributions
In cases such as El Kazra, Money, and Pierce, courts have recognised that an initial contribution (like an existing property or business) can provide a springboard for subsequent financial growth. However, its importance may erode over a long marriage, especially where both parties’ efforts sustain and grow the asset.
Determining when, and how much, the springboard contribution should discount over time is an art, not a science. Jabour has kept the spectre of the springboard alive, at least for the time being. One wonders, however, whether it will go the way of other “special” contributions.
Windfalls and the Asset Pool
Another recurring issue is the treatment of windfalls—lotto wins, inheritances, and unexpected gains. In Elford, a lottery win remained the husband's separate contribution. In Bonnici and Eufrosin, inheritances were included in the pool but assessed carefully as to contributions.
Timing, intention, and benefit to the relationship all influence whether a windfall is quarantined or absorbed.
Third Party Contributions
Where third parties provide financial support—parents helping buy a home, for instance—the form of the transaction matters greatly. Was it a gift, a loan, or a trust arrangement? Cases like Gosper, Kessey, and Mabb (2020) show that courts will examine not just the source of funds, but who ultimately benefited.
Understanding and evidencing the intention behind third party inputs is critical.
Post-Separation Contributions
Post-separation conduct matters too. If one party shoulders primary responsibility for mortgage repayments or business management after separation, it may warrant an adjustment. As seen in Marsh, courts weigh these contributions, but they do so cautiously—mindful not to re-litigate the relationship itself.
Jabour and the Holistic Assessment
The Full Court's decision in Jabour has encouraged a more holistic assessment of contributions. Rather than a strict itemisation or compartmentalised analysis, the focus is on broad evaluation—sometimes referred to as the “one figure approach.”
Jabour reminds us that property settlement is about achieving overall justice and equity, not parsing every dollar or deed individually, nor socially engineering a matter to suit the prevailing zeitgeist.
Contributions and the Future
Assessing contributions remains a flexible exercise, shaped by evolving socio-political ideologies and the court's innate conservatism. It demands careful judgment, not mechanical calculation. While earlier cases provide guidance, practitioners must be ready to adapt—looking at the totality of the relationship, the practical reality of contributions, and the just outcome for all parties involved.
Final Thought
At its core, assessing contributions is about understanding and valuing human effort, sacrifice, and partnership. As society changes, so too will our approach—but the need for fairness and nuanced judgment will remain constant.
Disclaimer: The statements, analyses, opinions and conclusions in Legalwise Insights are those of the respective authors and not of Legalwise Seminars Pty Ltd which acts only in the capacity as editorial co- ordinator of the content in Legalwise Insights. No part of any article can be regarded as legal or financial advice. Although all care has been taken in the preparation of all articles, readers must not alter their position or refrain from doing so in reliance on any information contained therein. Neither the respective authors nor Legalwise Seminars Pty Ltd accept or undertake any duty of care relating to any part of Legalwise Insights
Liability limited by a scheme approved under the Professional Standards Legislation
