When separating couples have complicated financial arrangements—like trusts or business interests—dividing assets fairly can be challenging. The recent case of Doyle & Doyle [2024] involved exactly that: a 32-year relationship, two adult children, and a dispute over property worth millions, some of which was tied up in a family trust.
This article explains what the Federal Circuit and Family Court decided, why, and what this means for others in similar situations. If you’re going through a property settlement involving trusts or inheritances, this is worth a read.
Background: Long Relationship and Trust Interests
Mr. and Ms. Doyle were in a long-term relationship lasting over three decades. They had two children (now adults) and owned significant assets, including:
- A home in Sydney
- A commercial investment property
- Vehicles, shares, superannuation
- Business assets
- And a family trust—called the Doyle Family Trust
The trust was established during the relationship. The husband was the appointor and a trustee, giving him control. Although the wife was not a formal beneficiary or controller, the trust had benefited both parties over time.
The Dispute: What Was Argued
The husband wanted the trust to be excluded from the property pool, claiming it was not “property” under the Family Law Act. He said it was set up to benefit future generations and not for him personally.
The wife disagreed. She argued the trust had been treated like a shared financial resource for years and should be included in the property division.
The Legal Question: Is a Trust Property?
Under Australian family law, the court must determine what is property (which can be divided) and what is a financial resource (which may be considered but not divided directly).
This case came down to:
- Whether the Doyle Family Trust was under the effective control of the husband
- Whether it should be treated as part of the divisible asset pool
The Court’s Findings
1. The Trust Was Controlled by the Husband
The court looked closely at who had control over the trust—and found that the husband effectively controlled it:
- He was the appointor, meaning he could hire or fire trustees
- He was also one of the trustees
- He had made financial decisions that benefited the family
Because of this control, the court ruled that the trust was effectively the husband’s property and should be included in the asset pool.
This follows the principle established in past cases like Kennon v Spry, where trusts controlled by one spouse can be treated as property if they are used like personal assets.
2. Property Pool Totalled Over $5.7 Million
After including the trust, the total property pool was just over $5.7 million. This included:
- The former matrimonial home
- Business interests
- Vehicles and shares
- Superannuation
- Trust assets
3. Contributions Were Assessed as Equal
Even though the husband had higher earnings throughout the relationship, the wife had contributed significantly by raising the children, managing the household, and supporting his business ventures.
The court found that their contributions were equal—both financial and non-financial—across the 32-year relationship.
4. Future Needs Adjustment of 5% in Wife’s Favour
Because the wife had lower earning capacity and future financial needs (including age and health considerations), she received an extra 5% on top of the equal share.
This resulted in the wife receiving 52.5% of the overall asset pool, and the husband receiving 47.5%.
What Orders Were Made?
The court made the following orders:
- The wife was to retain the former matrimonial home
- The husband was to retain the commercial property and business assets
- Superannuation was split
- The Doyle Family Trust was treated as property and divided accordingly
- Cash equalisation payments were ordered to balance the division
What This Case Teaches Us
1. Trusts Are Not Automatically Excluded from Property Settlements
If one party has effective control of a trust, and it has been used to benefit the family, the court may treat it as property.
2. Long Relationships Usually Lead to Equal Contributions
In most long-term relationships, courts assume that both parties have contributed equally—even if one party earned more income.
3. Financial Control Doesn’t Guarantee Greater Entitlement
The fact that the husband managed more of the finances didn’t lead to a bigger share for him. The court still saw both parties as equal contributors.
4. Future Needs Matter
Courts consider future needs like income capacity, health, and age when adjusting property division—especially for spouses who may have paused their careers for the family.
5. Legal Structure Doesn’t Override Practical Reality
Even though the trust was legally “separate,” the court looked at the reality of how it was used. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck—it’s likely to be treated like one.
Plain-English Tip
If you or your partner control a trust—even if it’s not in your name—it may still be included in a family law property split. Hiding behind legal titles won’t protect it from scrutiny.