Special Contributions in Family Law: Hoffman vs Hoffman

24 October 2025 in Family and Divorce Law | 6 min read | skip to FAQs

The concept of special contributions in family law was tested in the landmark case of Hoffman vs Hoffman 2014 (Cth). This important case has significantly contributed to the Family Court’s current view, that there should be no greater value placed on financial contributions compared to non-financial or homemaker contributions when determining property distribution and maintenance in divorce. This article discusses this and other import cases that considered the concept of special contributions in a relationship. We also briefly consider recent legislation that has expanded the definition of contributions in a marriage. We use the terms marriage and divorce to encompass de-facto and same-sex relationships.

A Summary of the Hoffman v Hoffman Case

Hoffman and Hoffman 2014 (Cth) was an appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia after a Federal Magistrate had determined an approximately $10 million property division between a husband and wife as 50% to each partner.

The husband appealed this decision on the basis that the Federal Magistrate should apply the principle of special contributions. He argued that the split should be 70% to him and 30% to his ex-wife. The husband argued that the failure to consider his skill and entrepreneurial flair as a special contribution to their financial assets was an error of law. He maintained that these skills contributed to the couple’s property acquisition and property development and were therefore instrumental in the parties having a property value of $10 million at the time of their separation.

This appeal was dismissed by the Full Court of the Family Court, finding that there is no binding rule of law about special contributions. The Full Court highlighted the statement by Fogarty J in In the Marriage of Waters and Jurek (1995)  that “homemaker contributions are to be given as much weight as those of the primary breadwinner”.

The Full Court deemed that there is no principle or guideline that renders the direct contribution of income or capital more important, or special, when compared against indirect contributions and, in particular, contributions to the home or the welfare of the family. It was concluded that it is the court’s task is to make findings as to the nature, form, characteristics and duration of each and all of the contributions made by each of the parties. Indeed, the Federal Circuit Judge Brewster said that the concept of “special contributions” was not part of Australian law. He said comparing financial and non-financial contributions to a marriage was like “comparing apples and carrots” and that it was “offensive” for home-making and child-rearing to be regarded as “menial” work. duration of the marriage was highlighted as a crucial factor influencing the evidence relevant to determining each party’s contributions.

Earlier Family Law Cases that Agreed with the Concept of Special Contributions

There have been earlier cases where the courts have favoured the breadwinner who has utilised their ‘special skills’, particularly in high wealth relationships. The High Court of Australia stated in Mallet v Mallet 1984 that there is no presumption that the property of a marriage will be divided equally between the husband and wife, and that each matter is to be decided on its merits. The concept of ‘special skills’ was also upheld in Ferraro v Ferraro 1993 where the court found that the husband had increased the value of their combined property due to his “special skills”.

It is important to note that the wealth achieved via “special skills” is considered to be different to a “windfall” such as a “lottery win” or an “inheritance” in these matters.

However, the more recent cases of Fields v Smith 2015 (Cth), Kane v Kane 2013 (Cth) and Hoffman v Hoffman 2014 (Cth) indicate that the legal principle of ‘special skills or contributions’ has become redundant.

Recent Family Law Disagreed with the Concept of Special Contributions

In another important family law case, Fields v Smith 2015 (Cth), the Full Court of the Family Court agreed with Hoffman v Hoffman 2014 (Cth), concluding that one type of contribution should not be treated as less important or less valuable than the other. In the landmark case of Fields v Smith 2015 (Cth), the Full Court of the Family Court, in assessing the contributions of the parties determined that there was equality of contributions during the marriage and that one type of contribution should not be treated as less important or less valuable than the other. Put simply, the wife’s significant contributions as homemaker were not to be treated as less important or less valuable than the husband’s contributions as breadwinner.

In summary, the court’s general view is that, particularly in a longer marriage/relationship, there is no greater weight given to financial contributions compared to non-financial or parent/homemaker contributions.

The concept of a Just and Equitable outcome

After considering the contributions, the court must review the decision regarding property distribution and maintenance to ensure it is in accordance with s79(2) which states that the court must be satisfied that the order is ‘just and equitable’. Indeed, the court does not have the discretion to make an order ‘unless it is satisfied that in all the circumstance it is just and equitable to make the order’.

2025 Family Law Amendments in Property Distribution & Maintenance

Financial Abuse now Included in Definition of Family Violence (Domestic Violence)

Schedule 1 of The FLAA (Family Law Act Amendments) has introduced a definition for economic or financial abuse in s4 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) This may include unreasonably denying the family member financial autonomy. In relation to property settlements, financial abuse was previously not recognised as family violence. The amendment addresses the power imbalance and exploitations that may occur through economic and financial abuse.

Family/Domestic Violence now Considered in Contributions

S19 of Schedule 1 of the FLAA has introduced amendments that requires the Court to consider the effects of family violence when making property settlement orders. Specifically, “the effect of any family violence, to which one party to the marriage has subjected or exposed the other party”. This is considered under considerations relating to contributions, formerly known as contributions factors.

Family violence must therefore be considered when making orders regarding maintenance, alteration to property interests and superannuation splitting orders. For more information on the 2025 amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) please see our article on Family Law Changes in 2025.

Key Takeaways

There is an extraordinarily wide discretion inherent in s 79 (4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Each case is considered by the Court individually, with the intention to do what is ‘just and equitable’ in the unique situations of each case. For more information on the concept of just and equitable, please see our article on property distribution in a divorce settlement.

Family law cases such as Hoffmann v Hoffmann 2014 and Field v Smith 2015 have contributed to the currently held family law principle regarding property division following divorce or a relationship breakdown, particularly in a lengthy partnership. That is, the concept of special contributions or skills have no greater value than the value contributed by parenting and homemaking.

Recent amendments to the Family Law Act in 2025 have contributed to the concept of contributions made during the marriage/partnership by broadening the definition of family violence to include financial abuse and broadening the definition of contributions to include family violence.

How can BSM Sydney Lawyers assist you?

The process of asset and property distribution and settlement in a relationship breakdown can be complex, stressful and have significant financial consequences. Brander Smith McKnight’s family lawyers have the legal expertise, compassion, empathy and professionalism to guide you through this process and advocate for your interests so you get a fair and equitable outcome. The senior family lawyers at BSM Sydney Lawyers offer a free 20-minute consultation.

FAQs

BSM Lawyer Sydney has offices conveniently located in Sutherland, Sydney CBD, Parramatta, Shellharbour and Wollongong.