> ## 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.
# Step 4 — Just and equitable
> The threshold question from Stanford v Stanford — is it just and equitable for the court to alter property interests at all? — plus the final fairness check on the proposed split. The Comprehensive Fairness Analyser at work.
import { CardGroup, Card, Note, Tip } from '@mintlify/components'
Step 4 is the final step in the four-step framework. It asks two questions:
1. **The threshold question** — is it just and equitable for the court to alter the parties' existing property interests at all?
2. **The fairness check** — is the proposed split (the result of Steps 1–3) just and equitable?
The Settlement Planner's **Just & Equitable** tab handles both, with the AI Fairness Analyser providing structured opinion.
## 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:
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.
Parties who are separating but where reconciliation is genuinely possible. Court may be reluctant to make permanent property orders that pre-empt reconciliation.
Where the parties have already concluded a binding financial agreement covering the property issues. Court will not duplicate or override.
Matters with effectively no joint pool — both parties came in with little, neither produced significant joint property. Rare.
For most matters, the threshold is satisfied without controversy. The platform's Just & Equitable tab confirms it explicitly so the analysis records that the question was considered.
## 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
The Analyser produces a structured opinion: **Reasonably fair / Aggressive / Conservative / Unduly harsh**, with reasoning.
## Reading the Analyser well
A few patterns:
**Don't anchor on the Analyser's verdict.** It's a structured opinion, not an oracle. Use it to test your reasoning against an external view. Where the Analyser disagrees with you, ask why.
**Pay attention to "Unduly harsh" verdicts.** This is the Analyser flagging that the proposed split, while perhaps mathematically supportable, would produce an outcome the court would likely correct. Take the flag seriously.
**"Aggressive" verdicts are common in negotiation positions.** A first offer that the Analyser calls "Aggressive" can still be a reasonable opening; it's not a problem until you near settlement. The Analyser is informational; strategic use is yours.
## 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 $1.4M pool = $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:
1. **Adjust the percentage.** Take a smaller share to address the unfairness. Most common where the Analyser flags "Unduly harsh".
2. **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.
3. **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.
Each is legitimate. The Analyser's job is to make the decision visible.
## 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
Once Step 4 is settled, the platform's offer-tracking and negotiation tools.
Step back to the full framework.
Re-examine the future-needs adjustment if Step 4 flagged issues.
AI-driven settlement reasoning across all steps.