One car crash, two damages payouts and a 55/45 split

55% to him, 45% to herFamily Court of Western Australia · 24 September 2025
Together
About 21 years, married
Children
Two, both adults
Net pool
About $4 million
Split
55% him / 45% her
A woman in her sixties sitting alone in a waiting room with a thick folder on her lap and a walking stick beside her.

The couple lived together for about 21 years and were married for nearly all of them. Both were professionals on similar incomes, and both cut back their work when their two children, now adults, were born. Late in the marriage, both were seriously injured in the same car accident. Neither can work now. His injuries changed his behaviour, and before they separated the wife took on most of his care, the children and the family's affairs.

Each later received damages, and after tax and legal costs his award was nearly three times hers. He put most of his into a pension fund that still held about $760,000 at trial. After separation she gained a one-third interest, worth about $275,000, in a trust holding her late father's estate. She also controlled a second, discretionary trust. Once the husband's lawyers began asking about it, she paid more than $230,000 out of it to one of their adult children within days.

The pool was about $4 million, including the mortgaged home the husband lived in, valued at $2.2 million. Justice O'Brien applied the law as amended from 10 June 2025 and the Full Court's recent decision in Shinohara. He rejected both sides' lists of add-backs: there is no such thing as notional property. The wife had not proved family violence before the accident, but afterwards her contributions were greater and harder to make. Against that, the husband had preserved much of his larger award. Contributions were 55% to him and 45% to her.

Looking ahead, the wife sought 5% more, pointing to the income gap, his home and her support of their children. The judge declined. She had an ongoing right to live in her father's trust property, she had paid trust money away to one of the children, and she gave no detailed evidence of how much of her award was spent. No adjustment was made either way. The husband kept the home and was ordered to pay her about $267,000, and she received all of his interest in their joint pension fund, bringing her share to about $1.79 million.

What it means for you

Damages for an injury are counted mainly as the contribution of the person who received them, but they stay in the pool. Under the amended law, money spent or moved away is weighed among the s 79(5) factors rather than added back, and moving money out of a trust you control during a case can count against you.

Decided under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as amended from 10 June 2025. The proceedings began years earlier, but the final hearing began in July 2025, after the amendments commenced, so they applied (Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) Sch 1 item 68). Applies Shinohara & Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126 on add-backs. No appeal was found when checked on 27 October 2026.

The decision: [2025] FCWA 226

A published decision of the Family Court of Western Australia, retold in plain English. MKI Legal did not act in this case. Every outcome depends on its own facts. This is general information, not legal advice.

Talk to a family lawyer about your property split

Call us on (08) 9470 2777, or read how consent orders make an agreed property split binding.