Since 10 June 2025, changes to the family law framework have clarified that the economic effect of family violence can be relevant when altering property arrangements after separation. This has sharpened the focus on how conduct during a relationship can affect financial outcomes.
At the same time, early decisions indicate that although the issue is now firmly in play, the courts are still working through how it will be applied in practice.
What changed in June 2025?
The 2025 reforms to the Family Law Act 1975 introduced a more structured approach to property settlements, consolidating existing case law. As part of that framework, the court must consider a range of specified matters, including the economic effect of family violence, codifying the principles in Kennon v Kennon.
The reforms also clarify that family violence is not limited to physical conduct. It includes economic or financial abuse, such as controlling access to money, restricting employment or causing financial disadvantage to the other party.
Establishing family violence does not automatically lead to an adjustment. However, it makes it easier to identify when family violence may legitimately affect the outcome.
What does that mean in practice?
The key question is not whether family violence occurred, but what impact it had.
In practical terms, that may include effects on:
- a party’s ability to earn income
- a party’s ability to contribute during the relationship
- access to financial resources or information
- financial security after separation
- the overall justice of the outcome.
Where there is a real economic impact, the court is now required to take that into account.
Are there already cases showing the effect of family violence claims?
Yes, but with an important qualification.
There is not yet a settled line of post-10 June 2025 authorities that clearly quantify how family violence affects percentage outcomes under the new framework. Many cases continue to rely on the earlier approach from Kennon, which focused on whether violence made a party’s contributions more difficult, onerous or arduous.
This is unsurprising, given that the changes largely codified the Kennon principles. However, it will be interesting to see whether, over time, the court takes a broader approach to the effect of family violence on property settlements.
What do the early cases show?
A useful example is Pryor & Pryor (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 77.
In that case, the primary judge found that family violence in the form of financial and other forms of control, hampered the wife’s ability to contribute. As a result of this and other factors, the wife’s contributions were assessed at 57.5%. It is a clear example of family violence being part of the property analysis in a post-reform context, even though the judgment does not neatly attribute a specific percentage adjustment to the new statutory wording.
Another relevant decision is Acone & Paget (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 649.
In that matter, the court considered the effect of family violence on the wife’s current and future circumstances, as well as allegations of a historical pattern of violence. Similarly, a positive finding that family violence made the wife’s contributions more difficult was considered holistically alongside other relevant contributions.
The cases are instructive for two reasons. First, it suggests that family violence arguments, which were previously rare, are likely to be more common under the new framework. Second, it highlights that any such adjustment must be properly reasoned and supported by evidence.
What sort of evidence is likely to matter?
Where family violence is relied on in property cases, the evidence should be specific and directed to financial impact. This includes:
- detailed examples of controlling or coercive conduct, such as login history of electronic devices
- evidence of restricted access to funds or financial information, for example, text messages showing ongoing requests
- evidence of debts or financial disadvantage caused by the conduct, such as all assets being acquired in one spouse’s name while all debts are in the other’s
- material showing how the conduct affected contributions or recovery after separation, for instance, mental health issues arising from the conduct that impact the person’s ability to work.
If a party shows evidence of alleged historical violence but fails to adduce evidence about its financial impact or how it affected their contributions, the claim is likely to fail.
Conclusion
Since 10 June 2025, the law has been clearer that the economic effect of family violence can be relevant in property settlements.
What is less clear, at least for the time being, is how consistently this will translate into measurable adjustments. The reported cases show the issue is live, but the law is still evolving.
For now, the key practical point is this: where family violence has caused a real economic impact, it should be identified, supported by evidence and addressed. In the right case, it may significantly influence the outcome.
If you need assistance with your property settlement, please contact one of our experienced family lawyers.
