Family violence and property settlement: what changed.

Until the 2024 reforms, family violence was technically separate from property settlement — relevant for parenting orders, not for who got the house. In practice, however, the Court had developed the Kennon doctrine to recognise that violence affects contributions. The 2024 amendments wrote this into statute.

The old position — Kennon adjustments

Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 established that violence by one party against the other could be considered in the property settlement where the violence had a “discernible impact” on the victim’s ability to contribute. Adjustments were generally modest, and practitioner commentary has long described them as falling within a single-digit to low double-digit percentage range, though no official figures were published.

Kennon adjustments were narrow and required specific evidence linking the violence to a measurable effect on contributions — not just a finding that violence occurred. Many victims found the threshold difficult to meet.

What the law now says

The change came from the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), which commenced on 10 June 2025. It inserted s 79(4)(ca) into the Family Law Act 1975, requiring the Court to consider the effect of family violence by one party on the other party’s ability to make contributions: financial contributions, non-financial contributions, and contributions as a homemaker or parent.

Family violence now enters the analysis at two separate points, not one. Under s 79(4)(ca) it bears on contributions. Under s 79(5), the provision that now holds the considerations relating to current and future circumstances, the Court considers the effect of family violence on a party’s current and future position, which can include the ongoing cost of medical treatment or counselling made necessary by the violence.

The practical effect is that where family violence affected a party’s capacity to contribute, that is a matter the Court must consider, rather than an optional argument built on case law.

Economic and financial abuse

The 2024 Act also set out examples of behaviour that may constitute economic or financial abuse. They include controlling a partner’s money, assets or superannuation; sabotaging their employment or their ability to seek it; accumulating debt in their name; unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet reasonable living expenses; and dowry-related coercion.

This matters in a property matter because economic abuse is frequently the form of violence that leaves the clearest documentary trail. Bank records, loan applications, employment records and superannuation statements can evidence it in a way that is often harder for other forms of violence.

What this means in practice

• Evidence remains essential. Police records, AVO/IVO orders, medical records, counselling notes, contemporaneous diary entries. The court does not draw inferences without evidence.
• Linkage to contribution capacity matters. The amendment specifically references the victim’s “ability to contribute.” A finding of violence without evidence it affected contribution may not produce an adjustment.
• Current and future circumstances are assessed separately. Family violence often also affects future earning capacity through psychological impact, health and lost opportunities. That is considered at step 3, now under s 79(5), and no longer under the former s 75(2).
• It is too early for a settled pattern. The property provisions commenced on 10 June 2025, so there is not yet a body of decided cases from which reliable percentage ranges can be drawn. Treat any specific figure you are quoted, including in earlier versions of this article, with caution.

Apprehended Violence Orders / Intervention Orders

A protective order obtained during the relationship or at separation is significant evidence in any subsequent property matter. Each state has its own regime:

• NSW: Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.
• VIC: Intervention Order under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008.
• QLD: Domestic Violence Order under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012.
• WA, SA, TAS, NT, ACT: Equivalent state-based protective orders.

An order itself is not proof of the underlying behaviour for property purposes, but it strongly supports the contention that violence occurred.

Practical pathway

1. Safety first. Apply for a protective order if there is ongoing risk. The order does not prejudice your property or parenting position.
2. Gather evidence early. Police records, medical records, photographs, diary entries, communications. The older the evidence, the harder to obtain later.
3. Engage a family lawyer with violence-experienced practice. Not every family lawyer is comfortable running the s79(4)(ca) argument. Ask for examples of post-amendment matters they’ve run.
4. Decide on disclosure timing. Whether to disclose violence allegations in the property pleadings, in correspondence, or only at hearing is a strategic question. Get advice.

Resources

• 1800RESPECT: 24-hour national family violence counselling service. 1800 737 732.
• Men’s Referral Service: 1300 766 491 (for men who want to change violent behaviour).
• Lifeline: 13 11 14.
• Police: 000 (emergency) or 131 444 (non-urgent).