Step 4 is the final step in the four-step framework. It asks two questions:Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://help.rytz.com.au/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
- The threshold question — is it just and equitable for the court to alter the parties’ existing property interests at all?
- The fairness check — is the proposed split (the result of Steps 1–3) just and equitable?
The Stanford threshold
The threshold question comes from the High Court’s decision in Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52. Before Stanford, courts assumed that on relationship breakdown, property orders should be made — and proceeded to Steps 1–3. Stanford held that the court must first consider whether it is just and equitable to make property orders at all. In some matters — typically where parties have always kept their financial affairs separate, where there’s no need to unwind anything — the court can decline to make orders. The threshold is satisfied in most matters that come before a court (the existence of separation usually means existing arrangements need to be unwound). But Stanford requires the court to actually consider the question rather than assume it.When Stanford might not be satisfied
Rare but possible:Always-separate finances
Parties who maintained entirely separate financial lives (separate bank accounts, separate properties, no joint debts, no joint contributions). If neither party can identify a need for adjustment, Stanford may not be satisfied.
Reconciliation pending
Parties who are separating but where reconciliation is genuinely possible. Court may be reluctant to make permanent property orders that pre-empt reconciliation.
Substantively-resolved by other means
Where the parties have already concluded a binding financial agreement covering the property issues. Court will not duplicate or override.
No pool to divide
Matters with effectively no joint pool — both parties came in with little, neither produced significant joint property. Rare.
The Stanford second test — fairness of quantum
After the threshold is satisfied, Step 4 also asks: is the specific proposed split just and equitable? This is the final fairness check on the result of Steps 1–3. Sometimes a contributions + future-needs analysis produces a result that, while internally coherent, would be unduly harsh on one party — leaving them inadequately housed, unable to support children, or substantially worse off than the contributions arithmetic alone would suggest. The court can adjust further at Step 4 to address such outcomes. The adjustment is typically modest (1–5 percentage points) but can be larger in extreme cases.The AI Fairness Analyser
The Settlement Planner’s Just & Equitable tab includes the AI Fairness Analyser — a structured opinion on whether the proposed split is just and equitable. The Analyser considers:- Outcome adequacy for each party — does the post-settlement position leave each party adequately housed and resourced?
- Children’s housing and support — is the children’s primary residence adequately resourced under the proposed split?
- Comparison to typical outcomes — how does the proposed split compare to settlements in analogous published cases?
- Family-violence considerations (post-2025) — does the proposed split account for any economic disadvantage caused by family violence?
- Unusual factors — anything in the matter that makes typical comparisons unreliable
Reading the Analyser well
A few patterns:Sample Step 4 output
For our running 12-year-marriage example with two children:Step 4 analysis. Stanford threshold satisfied — parties’ financial affairs are intermingled (joint home, joint mortgage, shared accounts during relationship, joint children’s expenses). Property orders are appropriate. Proposed split: 58/42 in User’s favour (50/50 contributions + 8% Step 3 future-needs adjustment). Fairness assessment: Outcome for User: receives 58% of 812K. Sufficient to maintain children’s primary residence + reasonable household. Outcome for Other: receives 42% = $588K. Sufficient for adequate housing in same school region. Less generous than User’s position but supported by the s75(2) factors. Comparison to typical: this matter resembles Goldsmith & Brennan [2017] FamCAFC 35 in shape (12-year marriage, two children, primary-care parent, modest-large pool) where the Full Court upheld a 60/40 split. Proposed 58/42 is conservative within that range. No family-violence factors raised. Overall: Reasonably fair. No Step 4 adjustment recommended.
What if Step 4 produces a different result?
Sometimes the Analyser flags that the Step 1–3 result would be unjust. Three responses:- Adjust the percentage. Take a smaller share to address the unfairness. Most common where the Analyser flags “Unduly harsh”.
- Re-examine the Step 1–3 inputs. Often the unfair result reveals an error earlier in the framework — a mis-valued asset, an overstated contribution, an under-counted future-needs factor.
- Defend the position. Where the Analyser flags “Aggressive” but you have a strategic reason to maintain the position (initial negotiation, particular case-law parallel), you can ignore the flag.
What Step 4 will not do
- It will not predict the court’s view on fairness. The Analyser is informational; the court’s view is determined by the matter’s specifics + the bench’s reasoning.
- It will not adjust the percentages for you. Adjustments are strategic decisions.
- It will not replace mediation or counsel. A senior family-law solicitor reading the same proposed split will catch nuances the Analyser doesn’t.
What’s next
Offers and negotiation
Once Step 4 is settled, the platform’s offer-tracking and negotiation tools.
The section 79 framework
Step back to the full framework.
Step 3 — Future needs
Re-examine the future-needs adjustment if Step 4 flagged issues.
AI smart suggestions
AI-driven settlement reasoning across all steps.