In Brief — Why are peo­ple unable to reach an out of court settlement?

The two main rea­sons why sep­a­rat­ing cou­ples are unable to reach an out of court set­tle­ment are unre­al­is­tic expec­ta­tions and deci­sion mak­ing being cloud­ed by emotions.


Unre­al­is­tic expectations

When one par­ty has unre­al­is­tic expec­ta­tions about their enti­tle­ments, respon­si­bil­i­ties and oblig­a­tions it is very hard to reach an ami­ca­ble set­tle­ment. These kinds of unre­al­is­tic expec­ta­tions are usu­al­ly based on myths and advice from friends. It is rec­om­mend­ed that each par­ty receive inde­pen­dent legal advice from a fam­i­ly law spe­cial­ist and that each par­ty lis­ten to the advice being giv­en to them by such a spe­cial­ist. Fam­i­ly law spe­cial­ists pro­vide clear and thor­ough advice. They are experts in advis­ing par­ties on what their enti­tle­ments under the Fam­i­ly Law Act are and can ulti­mate­ly help par­ties reach an ami­ca­ble set­tle­ment faster with­out the need for court action.

Emo­tion­al deci­sion making

Let­ting emo­tions affect your deci­sion mak­ing abil­i­ty makes it extreme­ly dif­fi­cult to reach an out of court set­tle­ment. Emo­tions have no place in fam­i­ly law set­tle­ments. Save your emo­tions for your friends and/​or your coun­sel­lor. Whether the mat­ter in dis­pute is relat­ed to your chil­dren or your finances, it is best to approach the set­tle­ment in a busi­nesslike man­ner. Bal­ance up the pro­pos­al against the like­ly risk and costs to you of not reach­ing an agree­ment and hav­ing to have your mat­ter deter­mined by the court.

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence Fol­ly Called Out by Fair Work Commission

In the recent Fair Work Com­mis­sion deci­sion Mr Bran­den Dey­sel v Elec­tra Lift Co.[2025] FWC 2289, Deputy Pres­i­dent Slevin applied a crit­i­cal…

Assess­ing Scope 3 Emis­sions: An analy­sis of the impli­ca­tions of Den­man Aberdeen Muswell­brook Scone Healthy Envi­ron­ment Group Inc v MACH Ener­gy Aus­tralia Pty Ltd [2025] NSW­CA 163 (the Mount Pleas­ant decision)

Intro­duc­tionOn July 24, 2025, the New South Wales Court of Appeal (NSW­CA) deliv­ered a land­mark rul­ing in Den­man Aberdeen Muswell­brook Scone…

Work­place Rela­tion­ships: The Legal Posi­tion (Cold­play Con­cert Edition)

The recent sto­ry of col­leagues (a Chief Exec­u­tive Offi­cer and Chief Peo­ple Offi­cer (CPO)) whose appar­ent rela­tion­ship was cap­tured on…

In the News

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, Fair Work warns lit­i­gants against using Chat­G­PT”, pub­lished in The Aus­tralian on 28 August 2025:

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Fair Work warns lit­i­gants against using Chat­G­PT”, pub­lished in The Aus­tralian on 2…

Con­grat­u­la­tions | Angela Har­vey & John Trinh for being recog­nised in 2025 Doyles Guide Rankings

We’re proud to announce that Angela Har­vey has been recog­nised in the 2025 Doyles Guide as a:Rec­om­mend­ed Lead­ing Estates Lit­i­ga­tion Lawyer…

Michael Byrnes appeared on Nights with John Stan­ley on 2GB and 4BC on 25 August 2025 to dis­cuss the legal aspects of work­place surveillance

Michael Byrnes appeared on Nights with John Stan­ley on 2GB and 4BC on 25 August 2025 to dis­cuss the legal…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information