One wife received 65 per cent for an inheritance. The other received 63 per cent after SMSF withdrawals and a wide income gap.
Your client and their spouse are separating. Most people expect to split everything 50/50.
In two recent cases, the wife got 65% and 63%.
In the first, she got more because of what she inherited. In the second, his far higher income favoured her, so did the fact that he improperly took money out of the family SMSF.
Harridan: the inheritance
Harridan & Harridan [2026] FedCFamC1A 104.
In 2016 she received property worth about $3.3 million from her father’s estate. They separated two years later, after about 20 years together [37, 39].
At the appeal, the inheritance made up nearly half of their property [44].
The trial judge gave her 56 per cent [14].
On appeal, Schonell J found the trial judge had weighed contributions in separate boxes and given the inheritance too little weight [24]. Contributions call for “a holistic, not mathematical, value judgement” [36].
Her share became 65 per cent [47].
In the judge’s words, the gap of nearly $2,000,000 “reflects the weight given” to what came from her father’s estate [47].
Keadle: the SMSF
Keadle & Holcombe [2026] FedCFamC1F 477.
Both spouses were directors of the trustee company of their SMSF [12].
He paid $47,750 from the fund to his new partner and backed it with invoices he manufactured [67].
His partner later agreed to pay the wife $50,000 [16]. He also paid $44,420 from the fund to himself [67].
Under the 2024 amendments, as the Full Court reads them, money already taken out can no longer be added back to the pool [49]. So Parker J treated the $44,420 as wastage instead [55, 66].
Contributions were equal, while he earned about $206,000 a year and she earned about $25,000 [61, 64]. With those and other factors, the wife got 63 per cent of everything, super included [76, 82, 84].
The husband must also bear the fund’s ATO debt and indemnify her against future tax liabilities and penalties [70]-[71].
The court refused her request for a $500,000 bank guarantee [93, 103]. It granted most of her other protections [107]. He pays her costs on the indemnity basis [147].
The practical takeaway
Harridan was decided by a single judge on appeal. Keadle is a first instance decision.
For advisers, both cases turned on files you may already hold: the estate and the SMSF.
General information only. This note was accurate when written. The law may have changed since and the note is not updated. It is not legal or tax advice, does not take account of your circumstances and must not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on your own matter. If the issue is live for you or your client, email arda@nortonquaytaxlaw.com.au for advice on the current position.