What Happens if my Ex Refuses to Provide Financial Disclosure?

Each party to a property settlement has a duty to provide full and frank disclosure to the other party or parties. This duty applies not only if your matter is before the Court, but also while parties are preparing for a financial proceeding,   

To read more about what documents must be disclosed during a proceeding, click here.  

What you can do if you are concerned about non-disclosure?

When parties are in Court, some of the options to pursue the production of documents are:    

1. Seeking specific Orders for disclosure;  
2. Issuing a subpoena for the production of documents directly from institutions, such as banks;  
3. Filing a Superannuation Request with the Australian Taxation Office;  
4. Issuing a Notice to Produce at least 7 days prior to a hearing, or 28 days prior to a final hearing.  

The appropriate pathway will depend on what specifically has not been disclosed, and why. Depending on what has yet to be disclosed, there are less options to address non-disclosure out of Court. If the alleged non-disclosure is significant to the property settlement, it may be necessary for parties to commence Court proceedings so that the above avenues are available.  

What if the Court finds that there has been non-disclosure by a party?

If there is non-disclosure from a party, the Court can impose the following consequences on the non-disclosing party:  

1. For a property settlement, the Court is entitled to take non-disclosure into account when determining the entitlements of each party to the property pool (including by making findings against that party, or making adjustments to the division of the net property pool to account for non-disclosure);  
2. The Court may order the non-disclosing party to pay costs to the other party;  
3. If a disclosure order is made by the Court, and this is contravened, the Court can impose sanctions for the contravention of a Court order, including issuing a fine or sentence;  
4. The Court may find that a party is in contempt; or 
5. All or part of the proceedings may be stayed or dismissed.    

Case studies  

Floros & Bret [2026] FedCFamC1F 286 

This is a property proceeding which had been before the Court since 2023. The Court had already made Orders requiring the Respondent to provide disclosure documents to an expert witness in the proceeding. If the Respondent was unwilling or unable to provide the documents to the expert witness, he was ordered to file an affidavit which set out why this was the case.  

The Respondent neither provided the financial documents required nor filed an affidavit as ordered.  

The Applicant subsequently filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking:  

1. A declaration that the Respondent was in default; and  
2. That for the purposes of the property application before the Court, that the Court proceed on the Applicant’s evidence, in addition to either no evidence by the Respondent, or limited evidence as the Court considered appropriate.  

The Applicant asserted that there had been a long history of non-disclosure, spanning several years in which the parties had been before the Court.  

The Respondent argued that many of the documents simply did not exist, however the Court agreed that there had been a consistent failure to provide disclosure.  

The Court ordered that the Respondent provide the required disclosure within 14 days (or file an affidavit of why he was unable to do so), absent which, the property application would proceed on the Applicant’s evidence and limited evidence from the Respondent.  

The Court asserted that the Respondent should pay the Applicant’s costs of this Application in a Proceeding, with this sum to be determined at the next Court date.  

While this was an interim decision, and not a final decision, the Court also noted that the Applicant may have a remedy, and referred to case law in relation to adjustments in property settlements where there has been non-disclosure.   

This case demonstrates some of the avenues that the Court can take to ensure that the property matter can still be determined notwithstanding non-disclosure from the party. The Court has agreed to make an Order for costs, has Ordered that the matter will proceed in default if the Respondent does not comply with his disclosure obligations, and foreshadowed an impact to the division of the net property pool.  

The Court also relied upon Orders, Notations, and comments of former Judicial Registrars from procedural hearings in the lead-up to this court event, demonstrating the importance of ensuring a thorough court record of any non-disclosure.  

Atifa & Partha [2026] FedCFamC1F 172  

This case concerns a Final Hearing on both property and parenting matters.  

The parties had a short relationship, having commenced a relationship in 2018, and separated in 2022. The Applicant made greater initial contributions to the relationship, including two real properties and superannuation.  

During the relationship, the parties purchased a business together. After the separation in 2024, the Respondent withdrew the Applicant’s access to the business accounts after he raised concerns about her withdrawing funds from the business.  

During the proceedings, the Respondent failed to disclose:  

1. Financial information, including bank statements or evidence of her superannuation entitlements. The Respondent’s bank statements were subpoenaed by the Applicant, which she objected to, but that the Court allowed the Applicant’s lawyers to inspect;  
2. What charges that she was facing in the Magistrate’s Court, asserting that this information was irrelevant to parenting proceedings; and  
3. Medical information corroborating health matters she asserted impacted her ability to participate in proceedings.  

The Respondent further did not comply with Orders:  

1. To file tax returns for the business; or  
2. To file trial material, including a Financial Statement setting out her position, her Amended Response, or an Affidavit for the Hearing.  

The Respondent did not attend the hearing and, by email, requested that the hearing not proceed as scheduled. This was unsuccessful, and the Hearing proceeded on an Undefended basis.  

As a result of non-disclosure from the Respondent, in the parenting proceedings, the Court noted;

“Concerns for [the child]’s safety in the respondent’s care are heightened given the respondent’s failure to provide evidence as to her current mental health status, and her living arrangements…”  

In the property proceedings, the Court applied the case of Weir & Weir (1992) FLC 92-338 which states:  

... once it has been established that there has been a deliberate non-disclosure   ... the Court should not be unduly cautious about making findings in favour of the innocent party. To do otherwise might be thought to provide a charter for fraud in proceedings of this nature. 

In considering the lack of disclosure from the Respondent, the Court made findings as to the values of assets, and funds distributed, in accordance with the Applicant’s position.  

The overall distribution of the net property pool was 85% to the Applicant, and 15% to the Respondent. The assets retained by the Respondent primarily consisted of the business, which the Court found had the value asserted by the Applicant.  

The impact of non-disclosure in this matter is clear. The Court readily accepted the evidence of the Applicant, as the Respondent provided no alternative    

Key Takeaways  

Your disclosure obligations are serious, and there can be serious consequences for non-compliance. Because of this, if you are ever unsure about whether information or a document needs to be disclosed to the other party, you should discuss this with your solicitor.