Valuing an NDIS business for a family law settlement or a dispute between its owners

Why this is expert-tier work

A sale valuation is read by a buyer who can walk away. A family law or dispute valuation is read by a party who cannot. Instructions come in writing, often jointly; facts are agreed or stated by each party; questions follow in writing; experts confer. NDIS business valuations explains how a provider is valued; this page covers what changes when it is contested.

In a property settlement the framework is Part 7.1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021. The parties may jointly appoint a single expert (rule 7.03) or the court may order one (rule 7.04), and the expert's duty to the court prevails over any obligation to the person instructing or paying (rule 7.18). The report must state its reasons, methodology, facts and assumptions (rule 7.22), and clarification questions are put once and answered in writing (rules 7.26 and 7.27). See family law business valuations.

Basis of value and the valuation date

The instructions fix the interest, the basis of value and the date. The interest is often shares or units, so we value the operations at enterprise value, deduct debt and add surplus assets to reach equity value, then value the parcel. See share and equity valuations.

In family law the usual basis is market value: the price a willing but not anxious buyer and seller would agree at the valuation date, both properly informed and at arm's length. It counts only what a buyer would pay for, so a provider that depends on its owner may be worth little more than its net assets while still producing a substantial income for that owner. Instructions sometimes also ask what the business is worth to the party who keeps it, and the report defines each basis it applies. How the court weighs an income that could not be sold is a question of law under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (section 90SM for de facto relationships), to be confirmed with your lawyer. See valuing a healthcare business for family law.

In a shareholder dispute the agreement often names fair value without defining it. Fair value is usually taken to mean a price that is fair between these parties. A half interest cannot control the board or the distributions, which argues for a minority discount in an open market, but it also blocks the other half. Where a court orders a purchase of shares under sections 232 and 233 of the Corporations Act 2001, the terms are for the court: in one New South Wales Supreme Court buy-out the valuer worked to fair value and applied no minority discount to a half interest. Whether a discount applies is a legal question for your lawyer, so we show the pro rata and any discounted figure separately. The agreed case is at shareholder exit and buyout; the contested case at shareholder dispute valuations.

The date matters more here than in most sectors, because the rules change on published dates. Which date applies is a legal question, and where more than one is instructed we report each and explain what moved.

What is contested in an NDIS provider

Registration and the ABN sit with the entity. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission states that a registration is linked to a single ABN, is not transferable to a different ABN, and cannot be updated or amended once linked. Neither party can take it, but the Commission requires a change of ownership to be notified as soon as possible and, from 1 July 2026, a condition audit started within 3 months where a certification registration group is held and the change significantly alters governance. A buy-out that triggers that audit carries a cost the report prices.

Participants are not property of either party. The Commission states that on a change of ownership participants must not be automatically moved to the new owner. Where a few participants, or a few referring support coordinators, carry most of the revenue and those relationships sit with the person leaving, maintainable earnings fall. See participant and referral concentration.

The labour margin is where the parties most often disagree. Maintainable earnings, the profit the business can repeat, are reached by normalising reported profit: a market salary for the owner's rostering and on-call work, and the workforce costed as the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award requires. The Fair Work Ombudsman states that minimum award wages rose by 4.75 per cent from the first full pay period on or after 1 July 2026. A margin that exists only because sleepovers or the owner's own hours are underpaid is not maintainable. See what is maintainable earnings.

Reforms across the date, and goodwill

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing states that, following the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026, allocations for social, economic and community participation supports are reduced by 50 per cent and improved daily living skills allocations by 10 per cent from 1 October 2026 for new plans and reassessments, and the claiming window contracts to 90 days from 1 December 2026. The Department notes the reset reduces allocations rather than spending. The report states which settings applied at the instructed date and how sensitive the conclusion is to the step. See what reduces the value of an NDIS business.

Goodwill is the value of the business above its identifiable net assets. Taxation Ruling TR 1999/16, reflecting the High Court's decision in Murry, describes goodwill as one composite asset with sources rather than parts, and states that goodwill emanating from a sole practitioner's personality, reputation or skills is not transferable while other sources continue to draw custom. The report identifies which sources sit with the entity and which with the person leaving; a restraint is a legal question we take as instructed.