Home New Draft International Assets in Family Law

International Assets in Family Law

How Overseas Property Is Treated in Australian Settlements

If you or your former partner holds property overseas, your property settlement is not just about the home and superannuation in Australia. It could include a London apartment, a term deposit in Singapore, shares in a US brokerage, an investment villa in Bali, vested or unvested equity from an overseas employer, or interests in a foreign company or trust. International assets add moving parts like currency risk, disclosure hurdles, different land registries, and enforcement across borders. This page gives you a practical, high-level guide to how Australian family law treats overseas assets, what you must disclose, how values are determined, and what to do if you are worried assets will be hidden or dissipated.

Who this is for

You are a professional, founder, investor, or expatriate with a cross-border balance sheet. Your property pool might include:

Overseas homes and investment properties, in your name or held through a company or trust

Foreign bank and brokerage accounts, RSUs and ESPPs, and options in overseas employers

Retirement schemes and pensions based outside Australia

Business interests and joint ventures incorporated overseas

Digital assets custodied offshore or on foreign exchanges

Loans to or from family members living abroad

Are overseas assets included in the Australian property pool?

Yes. Australian courts take a global view of your property. The court identifies each party’s legal and beneficial interests, compiles a balance sheet of all property wherever situated, and then decides what is just and equitable. The fact that a property sits in another country does not exclude it. What changes is how information is obtained, how value is proven, and how orders are enforced.

Meet Some Of Our Family Lawyers

Your duty of full and frank disclosure

Your duty of disclosure extends to overseas property and continues from the start of negotiations to final orders.

If disclosure raises security or privacy concerns, propose safe alternatives such as disclosure to an independent expert under confidentiality undertakings, or redactions that still allow verification.

Expect to provide

A schedule of all foreign assets, liabilities, accounts, companies, and trusts

Title records for overseas real estate and company registry extracts

Bank and brokerage statements, including CSV exports

Vesting schedules for RSUs and options, grant letters, and plan rules

Pension statements and scheme rules for foreign retirement plans

Loan agreements and related party ledgers involving offshore family or entities

Evidence of recent sales, transfers, or encumbrances affecting foreign assets

Common red flags in global cases

Bank transfers to overseas brokers with no corresponding asset disclosure
Sudden title transfers of a foreign property to a sibling or parent
Creation of a new foreign company or trust shortly before separation
Claims of catastrophic loss or theft with no supporting police report or insurance claim
Large remittances are described as loans with no loan agreement or repayment history

Case law principles in play

Just and equitable threshold The court will only make property orders if it is just and equitable to do so. This frames how overseas holdings are identified and divided
Control and trust assets. Where one party holds effective control of a trust, trust property can be treated as part of the pool or as a financial resource. The analysis looks at real ability to direct benefit, not just a formal title
Add-backs and wastage. WheReckless spending or attempts to defeat a claim can lead to notional add-backs or percentage adjustments
Freezing orders. Courts can restrain dealings with assets located overseas when there is a real risk that a judgment will be frustrated without interim protection
Third-party orders. Orders can bind companies and other third parties in limited circumstances, especially where a party’s control is used to defeat a just outcome

Jurisdiction and forum selection

The Australian court can determine your property settlement even if assets are located overseas. Questions to consider early:

Jurisdiction. Where are you and your former partner domiciled or ordinarily resident, and where were you married or in a de facto relationship
Competing proceedings. Are there cases on foot overseas? Avoid inconsistent outcomes
Forum conveniens. If there is a genuine contest about the most appropriate forum, the court weighs convenience, governing law, the connection of parties and assets to each forum, likely delay, and cost
Strategy. If you expect overseas enforcement, choose a forum that produces orders you can register or recognise where the asset sits, or design orders that avoid foreign registration altogether
Getting forum advice early can save years of duplication and cost.

Valuing international assets

Valuation turns on reliable information and a clear valuation date. Common methods:

Real property. Use local market appraisals or valuations and allow for currency, local taxes, and selling costs
Listed securities. Use market close prices on the agreed date, with an averaging window if volatility is high
Private companies. Use EBITDA multiples or discounted cash flow, and factor in local regulatory and tax settings
Pensions and retirement schemes. Obtain scheme rules, vesting and portability terms, and actuarial values if required
Foreign currency. Document the exchange rate source and time of conversion. Where currency risk is material, agree on collars or averaging periods to smooth volatility
If an asset is illiquid or restricted, a discount for lack of marketability may be appropriate. If tax is certain on extraction or sale, model post-tax value rather than gross.

Managing currency risk

Currency movements can shift value quickly. You can control this risk by:

Agreeing on a valuation date with a specified exchange rate source
Using a short averaging window to reduce day-to-day noise
Building collars into cash adjustments at completion
Splitting exposure across assets so both parties share upsides and downsides
Hedging with forwards where the transaction size justifies it
Agreeing on these tools up front reduces later disputes.

Tracing and proving ownership across borders

Proving ownership of an overseas asset usually requires a mix of documents:

Title searches from foreign land registries
Company extracts, shareholder registers, and share certificates
Bank and broker statements showing acquisition, dividends, and sales
RSU and option grant documents with vesting and termination terms
Emails, loan agreements, and remittance records for inter-family transfers
Tax returns filed overseas that declare income from the asset
If records are incomplete, you can reconstruct a timeline from bank inflows and outflows, contracts, and registry data. Independent forensic accountants are helpful where assets have been moved through layers of entities or where a party claims a transaction was a gift or loan.

Trusts, companies, and control

International structures often hold family wealth. The court looks beyond legal title to effective control and benefit. Key points for you:

If you or your former partner controls a trust or company through shareholding, officeholder roles, or appointment powers, the asset or its value can be treated as part of the pool or as a financial resource
Distributions from offshore trusts are scrutinised, especially if they appear timed to defeat a claim
Loans from family companies should be documented. Undocumented movements are at risk of being treated as gifts or notional add-backs
Expect to disclose trust deeds, shareholder agreements, board minutes, and resolutions. Where documents are unavailable, the court can draw inferences from conduct.

Allegations of wastage, add-backs, and dissipation

If international assets were sold or transferred in circumstances that are wasteful, reckless, or designed to diminish the pool, the court can adjust the division. Typical scenarios include:

Selling a foreign property significantly under value to a related party
Rapid withdrawals from a foreign account after separation, with no credible explanation
Encumbering an overseas asset with a new mortgage without a genuine purpose
Moving funds into high-risk speculative investments after separation
When wastage is proven, the court can notionally add back value or adjust percentages to compensate the innocent party. Meticulous records and a credible narrative about purpose and need make the difference.

Freezing and preservation orders

If there is a real risk that assets will be moved or dealt with prematurely, you can seek urgent orders to preserve the position. The court can make:

Freezing orders that restrain the disposal of assets, including worldwide orders that capture foreign property by describing it with specificity
Disclosure orders compelling a party to reveal the location and extent of assets
Delivery up orders for passports or devices where there is a pressing risk of flight or data destruction
Orders to third parties, such as banks or companies, to prevent dealings or to provide information
Because these orders are intrusive, the court requires a strong evidentiary basis and undertakings about losses if the orders later prove unjustified. Precision matters. Draft orders that name specific assets, accounts, or entities and that respect foreign legal constraints.

Enforcing Australian orders overseas

Getting orders in Australia is one step. Enforcing them where the asset sits is the other. Options include:

Registration or recognition. Some jurisdictions allow registration of Australian monetary judgments, enabling local enforcement such as garnishees or writs over property
Mirror orders. Where property orders are not registrable, you can seek equivalent orders in the foreign court based on comity or local statutes
Targeted orders. Instead of attempting to transfer title to a foreign villa, require the owner to sell and account for the proceeds, with sanctions in Australia if they refuse
Company-level control. For shares in an overseas company, orders that change control of the shareholding or appoint a receiver over shares can be easier to enforce than trying to seize foreign real estate
Settlement architecture. Use escrow arrangements, undertakings, and staged payments that do not depend on foreign court processes unless necessary
Local advice in the foreign jurisdiction is critical. Design your Australian orders with an eye to how they will be read and used overseas.

International pensions, super, and employment equity

Foreign retirement schemes and equity compensation plans have their own rules about vesting, transfer, and tax. Practical points:

Get the plan rules early. Many plans restrict transfer to third parties or accelerate vesting on termination
Model pre-tax and after-tax values. Some schemes tax on vesting or exercise rather than sale
Consider a split of proceeds on vesting, with a clear mechanism for sharing tax and currency impacts
If transfer to the other party is impossible, a percentage of future proceeds with reporting and audit rights is often the cleanest
Set clear obligations to notify the other party of vesting, exercise, and sale events.

Practical disclosure checklist for overseas assets

Strategy to reduce conflict and protect value

Start early. Collect documents while accounts are open and foreign advisers are cooperative
Be consistent. Bank records, registry searches, and tax filings should tell the same story
Use independent experts. Forensic accountants and valuers create credibility and reduce argument
Control volatility. Use valuation dates, averaging windows, and currency collars
Design for enforcement. Prefer orders that can be carried out without overseas court processes, or that are easily mirrored where the asset sits
Be commercial. If an asset is hard to transfer or sell, trade it for a different asset or a cash adjustment rather than forcing an inefficient outcome

Get in Touch Today

Worked case studies

Case study 1: The London flat and the Singapore shares

You and your former partner lived in Melbourne but bought a flat in London as a long-term investment. You also built a portfolio of US equities through a Singapore broker. After separation, your former partner claimed the London flat was a gift from their parents and not part of the pool. Land registry records and bank transfers showed both of you paid the deposit and serviced the loan. The court included the flat in the pool, valued at market with an allowance for UK selling costs, and set a cash adjustment using a 14-day exchange-rate average. The US equities were divided by selling a portion and transferring the remainder in specie to your account with the same broker to avoid tax and operational friction.

Case study 2: The Dubai villa in a family company

The villa was legally owned by a foreign company. You demonstrated that your former partner controlled the company through nominee arrangements and board resolutions. The court treated the value as part of the pool and ordered a sale, with proceeds paid to a solicitor’s trust. Because registering the order overseas was uncertain, the orders also required your former partner to deliver signed sale documents and appoint a local conveyancer within 30 days. Failure would trigger a default mechanism appointing a receiver over the shares. The villa was sold and the proceeds were accounted for without overseas litigation.

Case study 3: RSUs with a US employer

You worked for a US tech company with unvested RSUs. The plan prohibited transfer to a former spouse. Settlement gave your former partner 40 percent of the net value of units vesting in the 24 months following orders. You had to provide quarterly statements, notify vest dates, and remit the percentage within five business days of each sale. A currency collar protected both sides from adverse exchange swings.

Case study 4: Foreign pension with limited portability

Your former partner had a European pension that could not be split directly. An actuary valued the present entitlement. The settlement traded your share of the pension for a larger portion of Australian assets, with a review clause if the foreign scheme changed its portability rules within three years.

Case study 5: The disappearing brokerage account

Soon after the separation, your former partner transferred most of a foreign brokerage account to a sibling’s account and claimed it was repayment of an old family loan. There was no loan agreement or repayment history. The court drew an adverse inference, added back the value as if the funds remained, and adjusted percentages in your favour.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do you need to disclose small foreign accounts?

Yes. Disclose first, then agree on a threshold for what materially affects the division. Omissions harm credibility.

What if a foreign registry will not release documents to you

Explain the steps taken and provide what you can. The court can make targeted orders or accept expert summaries while you pursue documents.

Can you avoid currency risk altogether?

Not completely. You can reduce it with averaging windows, collars, and staged payments.

What if your former partner refuses to cooperate with a sale overseas

Orders can require co-operation with clear default mechanisms, such as appointing a receiver or transferring control of shares in the holding entity.

Is an overseas asset safe from the Australian court

No. The court can make orders affecting parties within its jurisdiction. The challenge is enforcement, which is why orders are designed with overseas recognition in mind.

Can gifts from overseas family be excluded?

Gifts are examined carefully. If a foreign family member genuinely provided funds to only one party, that may be treated as a contribution on that party’s side or as a financial resource. If the “gift” looks like a device to move property out of the pool, expect scrutiny and possible add-backs.

New Draft International Assets in Family Law

International Assets in Family Law