Is the property pool valued at separation or at trial?

It is usually valued at the date of settlement or trial, not the date of separation. Changes in asset values, new debts or post-separation contributions can affect the final pool.

What are add-backs and do they still exist?

Add-backs were a way of treating money spent by one party before trial as if it still existed in the pool, but recent cases have moved away from that approach and focus instead on contributions and fairness.

How does the court deal with money spent on legal fees, holidays or gambling before trial now?

Rather than "re-creating" spent money, courts now look at how wasteful spending and premature distributions affect each party's contributions and the ultimate percentage split of the remaining pool.

Are discretionary family trusts included in the property pool?

A discretionary family trust is included in the property pool only if the party seeking to have the trust assets counted satisfies both limbs of the two-stage characterisation test: (1) effective control of the trust (commonly demonstrated by holding the power of appointment or the capacity to appoint/remove trustees) and (2) the capacity to benefit from the trust (the ability to direct income or capital to oneself). If both elements are present, the trust assets are characterised as property and form part of the pool; otherwise they are treated merely as a financial resource relevant to future needs.

What Is the Property Pool in a Family Law Settlement?

Q: What is the property pool in a family law settlement?

The property pool is the net value of all assets and liabilities of both parties at the time of settlement or trial, including real estate, bank accounts, superannuation, businesses, vehicles, trusts, interests in companies, and debts.

When a relationship ends, the first step in any property settlement is identifying the property pool. This pool is the net worth of both parties combined and forms the starting point for working out who receives what. The property pool covers more than just the family home. It usually includes all real estate in either name, bank accounts, term deposits, superannuation balances, investments, businesses, vehicles, personal loans and credit card debts. Trusts and interests in companies may also fall into the pool where the relevant party satisfies the control-and-benefit test outlined above. The court then subtracts liabilities from assets to determine the net figure.

When is the property pool valued?

A common misconception is that the pool is frozen at separation. In reality, the property pool is normally valued at the date of trial or settlement. That means changes in asset values, new debts, business growth or post-separation contributions can all affect the final numbers. Delays in commencing or finalising a property settlement can therefore shift outcomes, particularly when markets are moving or one party continues to build wealth.

Because of this, separating couples should be aware that how long they wait to resolve their property matters can be just as important as the size of the pool at separation.

What were add-backs?

Historically, courts sometimes used “add-backs” to deal with money spent by one party before trial. If a spouse emptied a joint account to pay their own legal fees, fund a holiday, gamble or buy a new vehicle, the court could notionally add that spent money back into the property pool and treat it as if it still existed. This prevented one party from intentionally “burning” the pool and leaving the other with very little.

Add-backs could also apply to early distributions of capital, such as one party taking an advance from the bank or selling a shared asset without agreement.

How have recent cases changed the approach?

Recent Full Court decisions have moved away from the formal add-back mechanism. The current trend is that only property actually existing at the time of the hearing is included in the pool. Spent money does not reappear on the balance sheet, even if it was very large.

That does not mean wasteful spending is ignored. Instead, the court now deals with dissipation in the contribution analysis. If one party spent a substantial amount of joint money, particularly in a way that was reckless or self‑serving, the judge may adjust the contribution percentages or overall division of the remaining pool to reflect that behaviour.

In practice, this shift makes it even more important for separating parties to:

Monitor and document withdrawals from joint accounts
Seek advice early if one party starts spending unusually large amounts
Consider interim agreements or orders to protect major assets and cash

Because the court no longer “re-creates” spent money, a depleted pool can mean both parties have less to share, even if the spender ultimately receives a smaller slice.

Trusts and the two‑stage test

Where a discretionary family trust is involved, the court applies the two‑stage characterisation test:

Property test – Does the party have effective control (e.g., power of appointment, ability to appoint/remove trustees) and the capacity to benefit (ability to obtain income or capital from the trust)? If yes, the trust assets are property and enter the pool.
Adjustment test – Only if the trust is property does the court consider the trust’s purpose, origin, the parties’ contributions, future needs, and whether any adjustment is required to achieve a just and equitable outcome.

This approach ensures that trusts over which a party truly exercises control and can benefit are split as part of the pool, while trusts that are merely a financial resource are considered only for future needs.

What Is a Property Pool and How Do Add-Backs Work?

When is the property pool valued?

What were add-backs?

How have recent cases changed the approach?

Trusts and the two‑stage test

See also

Need Specific Legal Advice?

Enquiry Sent