In Brief — Why are peo­ple unable to reach an out of court settlement?

The two main rea­sons why sep­a­rat­ing cou­ples are unable to reach an out of court set­tle­ment are unre­al­is­tic expec­ta­tions and deci­sion mak­ing being cloud­ed by emotions.


Unre­al­is­tic expectations

When one par­ty has unre­al­is­tic expec­ta­tions about their enti­tle­ments, respon­si­bil­i­ties and oblig­a­tions it is very hard to reach an ami­ca­ble set­tle­ment. These kinds of unre­al­is­tic expec­ta­tions are usu­al­ly based on myths and advice from friends. It is rec­om­mend­ed that each par­ty receive inde­pen­dent legal advice from a fam­i­ly law spe­cial­ist and that each par­ty lis­ten to the advice being giv­en to them by such a spe­cial­ist. Fam­i­ly law spe­cial­ists pro­vide clear and thor­ough advice. They are experts in advis­ing par­ties on what their enti­tle­ments under the Fam­i­ly Law Act are and can ulti­mate­ly help par­ties reach an ami­ca­ble set­tle­ment faster with­out the need for court action.

Emo­tion­al deci­sion making

Let­ting emo­tions affect your deci­sion mak­ing abil­i­ty makes it extreme­ly dif­fi­cult to reach an out of court set­tle­ment. Emo­tions have no place in fam­i­ly law set­tle­ments. Save your emo­tions for your friends and/​or your coun­sel­lor. Whether the mat­ter in dis­pute is relat­ed to your chil­dren or your finances, it is best to approach the set­tle­ment in a busi­nesslike man­ner. Bal­ance up the pro­pos­al against the like­ly risk and costs to you of not reach­ing an agree­ment and hav­ing to have your mat­ter deter­mined by the court.

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

10 year long stop on build­ing defect claims rein­forced for con­tri­bu­tion claims

The recent deci­sion in For­tius Broad­way No 1 Pty Ltd V ACN 103 211 141 Pty Ltd (for­mer­ly known as Wat­pac Con­struc­tion…

A High­er Evi­den­tiary Bur­den for Work Orders: The Prac­ti­cal Impli­ca­tions of The Own­ers – Stra­ta Plan No 102171 v Ceerose Pty Ltd [2025] NSW­CATCD 137

The deci­sion in The Own­ers – Stra­ta Plan No 102171 v Ceerose Pty Ltd; Zone Q Mil­sons Point Devel­op­ment Pty Ltd v Ceerose…

Impor­tant Work­place Rela­tions Changes Effec­tive 1 July 2026

Employ­ers and employ­ees alike should be aware of impor­tant changes in the work­place rela­tions are­na, effec­tive 1 July 2026. From that date:the…

In the News

Roger Corn­forth Retires Fol­low­ing 45 Years of Dis­tin­guished Legal Practice

Roger’s career has been defined by trust­ed rela­tion­ships, prac­ti­cal advice and an unwa­ver­ing com­mit­ment to his clients. Begin­ning his legal…

Protest group los­es appeal to obtain gov­ern­ment documents

The cas­es — Mudgee Region Health Alliance v Min­is­ter for Finance, Domes­tic Man­u­fac­tur­ing and Gov­ern­ment Pro­cure­ment and Nat­ur­al Resources [2026] NSW­CATAD…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, The PM v work­place stan­dards”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 8 July 2026

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“The PM v work­place stan­dards”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 8 July 2026To read the…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information