By Craig Nicol and Keleigh Robinson
Property – Wife’s non-financial contributions could also be classified as family welfare contributions and would not attract less weight
In Shehu & Vicario [2026] FedCFamC1A 49 (24 March 2026) the Full Court (Aldridge, Williams & Jarrett JJ) heard an appeal by the estate of the deceased husband from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
At first instance, the Court found the husband and wife commenced a relationship in 2010 and separated in October 2020. The wife’s family law proceedings were transferred to the Supreme Court as there were other proceedings involving the estate ([5]-[6]).
The Supreme Court ordered that the $153 million asset pool be divided 72.5:27.5 in favour of the deceased husband’s estate. Both parties appealed.
The estate argued that the Court erred when finding that the wife made significant non-financial contributions by acting as an “executive wife” and that the contributions assessment was plainly wrong ([24]-[25]).
The Full Court said (from [27]):
“There is no doubt that the wife, on her own or with the assistance of the husband, organised many social occasions, lunches, dinners, parties and travel involving the husband’s business associates. ( … )
( … )
[38] … [I]t is implicit in the submissions of the estate that if the wife’s contributions were to the welfare of the family and not indirect contributions to property, they would… attract less weight. We entirely reject such a proposition.
[39] It is an incorrect, and now out-dated, notion that contributions to the family carry less weight or value than contributions to property or income.
[40] In Rolfe and Rolfe [1979] FamCA 65 … Evatt CJ emphasised that homemaker and parenting contributions were to be treated in a substantive and not token manner. That aspect of her Honour’s reasoning was expressly approved by Wilson J in Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21 … [which] makes clear, the nature and quality of all of the contributions must be assessed. Labelling them as being to the welfare of the family does not diminish them, whatever they may be.”
The estate’s appeal was allowed in respect of a discounting of capital gains tax. The Full Court re-exercised discretion and divided the asset pool 80:20 in favour of the husband’s estate.
