In brief

Many busi­ness­es are found­ed and run by a hus­band and wife team. What hap­pens to the busi­ness if they divorce?


The clean break’ principle

The Fam­i­ly Court’s posi­tion is that when­ev­er pos­si­ble, there should be a clean break between ex-spous­es. This means a prop­er­ty set­tle­ment, with the com­bined asset pool being bro­ken into two chunks. When the assets include a busi­ness, the prop­er­ty split can take place in a num­ber of ways.

  • Val­ue of the busi­ness is off­set by oth­er assets

The best sce­nario is when there are addi­tion­al assets to be divid­ed. For exam­ple, if the busi­ness is val­ued at $500,000, there is oth­er prop­er­ty in the asset pool with rough­ly the same val­ue and the court deter­mines that the appro­pri­ate divi­sion is 50/50, it’s easy to do a straight swap or split.

  • Prop­er­ty set­tle­ment from com­pa­ny prof­its over time

Obvi­ous­ly, for this to work, the com­pa­ny has to be prof­itable. Sec­ond­ly, there needs to be an ele­ment of trust between ex-spous­es, because if only one of them is work­ing in the busi­ness, the oth­er can’t nec­es­sar­i­ly gauge whether the prof­it on the books is correct.

Lawyers can pro­vide for cer­tain dis­clo­sures, such as the books being checked by an inde­pen­dent accoun­tant. You also need fair and ade­quate default pro­vi­sions, so that if the agreed instal­ments are not paid, then and only then is the busi­ness sold.

  • Bor­row­ing mon­ey so one spouse can buy out the other

This is pos­si­ble if the company’s assets are suf­fi­cient­ly valu­able for a finan­cial insti­tu­tion to accept them as security.

  • Sell­ing the busi­ness on the open market

Clear­ly, if the com­pa­ny makes a good prof­it, owns valu­able intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty or has sub­stan­tial assets (build­ings or land), it has a bet­ter chance of a suc­cess­ful sale than if it doesn’t. Ide­al­ly, the busi­ness should be at arm’s length to the pro­pri­etor, have good gov­er­nance, employ qual­i­fied man­agers and have a clear struc­ture of responsibilities.

An SME run­ning a sys­tem of pro­duc­tion or man­u­fac­ture is more like­ly to be attrac­tive to buy­ers than a pro­fes­sion­al ser­vices com­pa­ny where the good­will is attached to the proprietor.

  • Bring­ing in anoth­er investor

If the com­pa­ny’s prof­its are to be paid to the proprietor’s for­mer spouse instead of being rein­vest­ed in the busi­ness and there is a risk that the com­pa­ny will be sold in the case of default, it’s unlike­ly that you will be able to attract an arm’s length investor. How­ev­er, an inter­est­ed rel­a­tive like a par­ent or new spouse may be pre­pared to help out.

  • Both peo­ple con­tin­ue to oper­ate the business

This can hap­pen when it is in the inter­ests of both peo­ple or there is no prac­ti­cal alter­na­tive, because the busi­ness is their only asset and it can­not read­i­ly be carved up.

In some instances, cou­ples have used con­sent orders in the Fam­i­ly Court almost as a con­sti­tu­tion of the com­pa­ny, set­ting out how they will del­e­gate tasks and man­age affairs into the future. I’ve seen oth­er instances where employ­ment con­tracts for the hus­band and wife have been incor­po­rat­ed as an annex­ure to court orders. This is very rare and usu­al­ly only tem­po­rary, until there are suf­fi­cient funds for one spouse to buy out the other.

Know when it’s time to move on

Ulti­mate­ly, suc­cess­ful busi­ness­es are built on suc­cess­ful rela­tion­ships. Cou­ples who have sep­a­rat­ed or divorced are not like­ly to be ide­al long-term busi­ness part­ners, no mat­ter how civ­il their break-up was. And if you can no longer stand the sight or sound of the per­son who used to be your life’s part­ner, it’s best to pack up your kit bag and move on. Just make sure that you look over the edge and plan your land­ing before you jump.

For fur­ther infor­ma­tion please contact:

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Decen­ni­al insur­ance for new apart­ment buildings

The New South Wales Gov­ern­ment con­tin­ues to address the lack of con­fi­dence in the build­ing indus­try, par­tic­u­lar­ly in rela­tion to…

More AI Slop in the Fair Work Juris­dic­tion: The Fight Back

In two recent cas­es both the Fair Work Com­mis­sion (FWC) and Fed­er­al Cir­cuit and Fam­i­ly Court of Aus­tralia (FCF­CoA) have…

NSW Build­ing (Approvals and Prac­ti­tion­ers) Bill 2026 Pass­es Parliament

The Build­ing (Approvals and Prac­ti­tion­ers) Bill 2026 (the Bill) passed through Par­lia­ment on Tues­day after­noon 4 August 2026. The Bill is…

In the News

Michael Byrnes’ arti­cle A per­ma­nent change: casu­al choice for employ­ees under the recent Fair Work Act amend­ments ”, was pub­lished on the NSW Law Soci­ety Jour­nal web­site on 4 Sep­tem­ber 2026

This arti­cle exam­ines recent amend­ments to Aus­trali­a’s Fair Work Act and their impli­ca­tions for casu­al employ­ment, employ­ee choice, work­place rights…

Michael Byrnes appeared on the Mum­brel­la­cast pod­cast with Tim Bur­rowes and Irene Hulme on 3 Sep­tem­ber 2026 to dis­cuss the lat­est devel­op­ments in the pro­ceed­ings brought by Jack­ie​‘O’ Hen­der­son against ARN

Mum­brel­la’s Tim Bur­rowes and Irene Hulme take a deep dive into the legal morass of the ARN/​Jackie Hen­der­son law­suit with lawyer…

Michael Byrnes appeared on McK­night Tonight with Robert McK­night on 2 Sep­tem­ber 2026 to dis­cuss the lat­est devel­op­ments in the pro­ceed­ings brought by Jack­ie​‘O’ Hen­der­son against ARN (from 11:25 to 35:50)

Kyle Sandi­lands called as a wit­ness in Jack­ie O Henderson’s case against ARN, Michael Byrnes appears on McK­night Tonight with Robert McK­night…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information