When a relationship ends, working out how to divide property can already feel complex. Superannuation can add another layer, particularly when it represents decades of work and a significant part of the wealth built over the course of a relationship.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the median age at divorce in Australia in 2025 was 47.3 years for males and 44.4 years for females. By this stage of life, many people have accumulated substantial superannuation entitlements.
But does superannuation always have to be assessed alongside the rest of the property pool? Not necessarily.
In some property settlements, the Court may assess contributions to superannuation separately from non-superannuation assets. This is commonly referred to as a two-pool approach.
The recent decision of Massey & Carmichael [2026] FedCFamC1A 139 provides a useful example of how this can operate in practice.
Ready to have a chat to a lawyer about your situation? Book a free, no-obligation consultation with the team at BGM Family Lawyers.
What is the two-pool approach to property settlement?
When determining a property settlement, the Court has discretion as to how it approaches the parties’ assets and contributions.
In most matters, all assets may be considered together as part of one overall, or global, assessment.
In others, the Court may assess contributions to particular assets separately. This is commonly referred to as a two-pool approach.
For example, a separate pool may be used for assets such as superannuation or an inheritance, depending on the circumstances of the case and how and when that asset was acquired or accumulated.
In Massey & Carmichael [2026], the Court adopted a two-pool approach by considering:
- superannuation interests as one pool; and
- non-superannuation property, such as real estate, savings and other assets, as another.
Why might the Court use separate property pools?
The asset-by-asset approach is less common than assessing contributions to the property pool as a whole, but it may be appropriate where particular assets have a distinctly different contribution history.
This can include circumstances where:
- the relationship was very short;
- one party owned significant assets before the relationship began;
- the parties kept their assets and financial affairs largely separate;
- one party received an inheritance later in the relationship;
- there is a significant amount of superannuation; or
- one party made substantial contributions to an asset acquired after separation.
This does not mean those assets are automatically treated separately. The approach taken will depend on the circumstances of the individual matter and what the Court considers appropriate when assessing the parties’ respective contributions.
The case of Massey & Carmichael [2026] FedCFamC1A 139
Massey & Carmichael [2026] FedCFamC1A 139 is a recent example of the Court taking an asset-by-asset approach. Despite both parties presenting their cases on the basis of a global assessment, the Court assessed their contributions differently across two separate property pools: a superannuation pool and a non-superannuation pool.
In relation to the superannuation pool, the Court assessed contributions as 75/25 in the Respondent’s favour. At the commencement of cohabitation, the Respondent already had superannuation entitlements, although there was no evidence as to their value at that time. Throughout the parties’ 23-year period of cohabitation, the Respondent remained in employment, whether on a full-time, part-time or contractual basis, and continued to accumulate superannuation. The Applicant also made significant contributions as the primary homemaker, which supported the Respondent in continuing her employment and, in turn, continuing to build her superannuation entitlements.
The Court assessed the parties’ contributions to the non-superannuation pool as 65/35 in the Applicant’s favour. Two significant factors contributing to that finding were the Applicant’s greater initial contributions and the superior contributions made by the Applicant to renovations during the relationship and after separation.
Ultimately, it is a matter for the Court to determine how to achieve a just and equitable outcome under the Family Law Act. In doing so, the Court has discretion to consider superannuation interests separately from non-superannuation assets when determining the proportions in which each pool should be divided.
What does this mean for separating couples?
Massey & Carmichael [2026] highlights the importance of evidence when a segmented or asset-by-asset approach is being considered. Where superannuation is significant, parties should be prepared to provide evidence of the value of their superannuation interests at key points in time, including:
- at the beginning of the relationship;
- at the date of separation; and
- at the time of the final hearing.
This can help the Court understand how those superannuation interests grew during the relationship and after separation, and how the parties’ respective contributions should be assessed.
Speak to a family lawyer about your property settlement
Every property settlement turns on its own facts. Whether the Court takes a global approach or assesses particular assets separately will depend on the circumstances of the relationship, the nature of the assets involved and the parties’ respective contributions.
If you are separating and your property pool includes significant superannuation, an inheritance, substantial pre-relationship assets or other assets with a distinct contribution history, it can be helpful to get advice early.
BGM Family Lawyers can help you understand how your assets may be treated as part of a property settlement and what evidence may be important to your matter. Contact our team to discuss your circumstances.
