Property disputes after separation: when family law, section 66G and caveats collide

Separated couples may have more than one legal pathway for resolving property disputes, but choosing the wrong one can change the outcome dramatically. A UNSW Edge presentation examined how family law property settlements, section 66G applications and caveats operate when relationship breakdown and real property overlap.

Urban Family Lawyers Principal Solicitor Katrene Halteh and Senior Associate Suna Ozcan outlined the key distinction between the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). While the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia can consider financial and non-financial contributions, homemaking, parenting, family violence, future needs and whether an order is just and equitable, a section 66G application in the NSW Supreme Court is a more confined property law remedy. For co-owners, an order for sale or partition may be available even where the family law limitation period has expired, but hardship or general unfairness will rarely defeat the application.

The session also warned practitioners against treating caveats as a shortcut in family law disputes. A caveat does not create an interest in land and cannot secure a mere expectation under family law orders or a right to sale proceeds. It must be grounded in a pre-existing proprietary interest, such as a resulting trust, constructive trust, proprietary estoppel or equitable charge. The practical message was clear: practitioners must identify the right jurisdiction early, test the evidence carefully and resist using property law tools where the client’s claim is really a family law entitlement.

If this topic interests you, you can learn more and receive a CPD point in Substantive Law here