For nearly 30 years, Australian Courts could take family violence into account in property settlement matters, but only in limited circumstances established through case law.
That changed on 10 June 2025, when amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) introduced by the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) came into effect. The reforms require Courts to consider the economic effects of family violence and economic abuse when determining how property should be divided following separation.
The reforms represent one of the most significant changes to property settlement law in decades. For anyone navigating separation where family violence or economic abuse has occurred, understanding what has changed is not just useful, it is essential.
The scale of the issue these reforms seek to address is substantial. In May 2025, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia published figures showing it receives more than 10,000 new parenting cases each year, with family violence alleged in 83 per cent of them. While property matters are counted separately, the data reflects how frequently family violence intersects with separation proceedings. For a legal framework that had previously addressed its financial consequences largely through case law and a high evidentiary threshold, those figures provide important context for the recent legislative changes.
Why the old framework failed
Since 1997, family violence has primarily been considered in property settlement proceedings through a principle derived from the case of Kennon v Kennon. Under that approach, a party seeking an adjustment to the property division on the basis of family violence was required to establish that the violence made their contributions to the relationship "significantly more arduous" than they otherwise would have been.
In practice, this was a difficult threshold to satisfy. Courts regularly heard evidence of sustained physical, psychological and financial abuse, only to find that the legal test had not been met.
Concerns about the limitations of the Kennon framework are not new. In 2019, the Australian Law Reform Commission published Family Law for the Future (ALRC Report), which was critical of how family violence was being addressed in property proceedings. The ALRC found that adjustments under Kennon were applied infrequently, generally resulted in modest outcomes and lacked a clear legislative foundation.
The Courts made a number of incremental developments following Kennon. In Keating & Keating, the Full Court confirmed that parties are not required to provide corroborating evidence to establish that family violence occurred. The Court acknowledged that family violence often takes place behind closed doors and may go unreported. As a result, evidence from the parties themselves may be accepted where the Court is satisfied that family violence occurred.
In Benson & Drury, the Full Court also clarified that any adjustment arising from family violence must form part of the overall assessment of the parties' contributions, rather than being treated as a separate percentage adjustment at the end of the settlement process.
While these decisions provided important guidance, they did not overcome the central limitation of the Kennon framework. Parties still needed to prove that the family violence had made their contributions to the relationship significantly more arduous before any adjustment could be considered.
The 2025 reforms represent a shift from the approach established by Kennon. They provide Courts with clearer direction when considering the impact of family violence on property settlements.
What the law now requires
One of the most significant changes introduced by the Amendment Act is that the process for determining a property settlement is now set out directly in the Family Law Act.
For the first time, the legislation formally outlines the steps the Court must follow when determining how property should be divided. Those steps include:
- Identifying the assets and liabilities of the parties;
- Assessing financial and non-financial contributions;
- Considering each party's current and future circumstances; and
- Determining whether the proposed outcome is just and equitable.
Previously, this approach had largely been developed through case law and judicial practice. By incorporating the process into the legislation itself, Parliament has provided a clear statutory framework for Courts to apply.
When assessing contributions, Courts must now take into account how family violence or economic abuse may have affected a person's ability to contribute financially or in their role as a homemaker or parent during the relationship. A person's role within the relationship cannot be viewed in isolation from the circumstances in which it was performed.
The reforms also require Courts to recognise the ongoing financial effects of family violence when assessing future needs. This may include reduced earning capacity resulting from trauma or injury, as well as the ongoing costs associated with medical treatment, counselling or establishing independent housing. The Court may also take post-separation conduct into account where relevant.
These reforms do not create a separate entitlement to compensation for family violence. Instead, they require the Court to consider the financial consequences of family violence and economic abuse when determining what constitutes a just and equitable property settlement.
A clearer definition of economic abuse
One of the most important aspects of the reforms is the expanded definition of economic and financial abuse under section 4AB of the Family Law Act.
Prior to the amendments, section 4AB contained only two general examples of this conduct: unreasonably denying a person financial autonomy and unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet reasonable living expenses.
The Act now specifically identifies a broader range of controlling behaviours, including:
- Restricting access to joint accounts or personal income;
- Withholding financial support for everyday living expenses;
- Sabotaging employment or career opportunities;
- Coercing a partner into taking on debt; and
- Dowry-related financial abuse.
The expanded definition gives greater guidance about the types of conduct that may constitute economic abuse, making it easier for Courts to recognise a broader range of financially controlling behaviour.
The reforms recognise that family violence is not limited to physical abuse. Patterns of financial control, coercion and manipulation can have significant consequences both during a relationship and following separation.
Family violence and spousal maintenance
The reforms extend beyond property settlement, with family violence now a relevant consideration when determining spousal maintenance for both married and de facto couples.
Prior to the amendments, spousal maintenance was assessed primarily by reference to a person's financial need and the other party's capacity to pay. Courts can now also examine the economic effects of family violence when determining whether maintenance should be ordered and, if so, in what amount.
If family violence has reduced a person's earning capacity, disrupted their career or resulted in ongoing expenses, those factors may now be relevant when assessing maintenance.
For people who have experienced significant financial dependence as a result of abuse, these changes may provide an additional basis for seeking financial support.
What this means in practice
While the reforms have now been in operation for more than a year, judicial guidance on some aspects of the amended framework is still evolving.
What is already clear, however, is that the way these matters are prepared and presented has changed. In addition to evidence about family violence itself, Courts will also need to understand its financial consequences.
Depending on the circumstances, relevant evidence may include bank statements, employment records, loan documents, text messages, emails, medical reports or evidence from professionals and family members who observed the conduct or its effects.
Another important change is that the duty of financial disclosure is now set out in the Family Law Act, reinforcing the requirement on both parties to provide complete and accurate financial information throughout the proceedings.
Legal practitioners are now required to advise clients about their disclosure obligations from the beginning of any property negotiation, not only once Court proceedings have commenced. This is especially important in matters involving economic abuse, where conduct such as concealing assets, hiding income or misrepresenting liabilities may continue after separation.
This duty applies whether a matter is being negotiated privately, resolved through mediation or litigated before the Court. A failure to comply may also influence the orders made by the.
For people affected by family violence or economic abuse, obtaining legal advice early may be critical, particularly before documents, records and other evidence become more difficult to obtain.
Scope, timing and retrospective application
An important feature of these reforms is that they are not limited to new cases.
The changes apply not only to proceedings filed after 10 June 2025, but also to many cases that were already underway when the reforms commenced, provided they had not yet reached a final hearing.
This means that people who separated, commenced negotiations or filed proceedings before June 2025 may still be affected by the new framework.
At Aubrey Brown Lawyers, our family law team advises clients on property settlements, including matters involving family violence and economic abuse.
