An estimated 4.2 million Australians (21%) aged 18 and over have faced violence, emotional abuse or economic abuse by a partner since the age of 15. Of that amount, over 3 million (including more than 2 million women) have experienced coercive control (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022). Previously, judicial consideration of family violence in property settlement matters was primarily informed by case law. Recent amendments to the Act now codify the Court's obligation to consider family violence in all its forms when assessing a party's contributions and future needs.
What is coercive control?
Although coercive control is not explicitly defined under the Act, the concept is addressed within the definition of family violence. Specifically, under section 4AB of the Act, family violence includes, among other behaviours, 'violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family'.
In Illgen & Yike [2018], Gill J explained that, while the legislation uses 'coerces or controls' disjunctively, the two concepts are closely linked. Together, they describe an expanded form of power exercised to restrain or compel another person through force, domination or command. Likewise in Ramzi & Moussa [2022] FedCFamC2F 1473, Judge Beckhouse noted that coercive control, particularly when not involving overt violence or threats, generally refers to a pattern of behaviour aimed at dominating and controlling another person, often within a family context.
As coercive control can frequently involve emotional or financial abuse, it is helpful then to consider how economic and financial abuse is defined in section 4AB(2A) of the Act. It includes:
- unreasonably restricting a party's financial independence by controlling their money or assets
- sabotaging a party's employment or income opportunities
- forcing them to assume financial or legal liabilities, or accumulating debt in their name without consent
- withholding necessary financial support for reasonable living expenses, especially when the family member or their child depends on that support.
In Boulton & Boulton [2024] FedCFamC1A 132, examples of the husband's coercive and controlling behaviour included restricting the wife's access to credit cards, cancelling them and cutting them up, delaying the payment of school fees and refusing to pay accounts even though he was in a position to do so.
The seminal case considering the impact of family violence on property settlements is Kennon v Kennon [1997] FamCA 27.
In that case, the Court determined family violence would be considered in a property settlement upon satisfaction of three elements:
- a course of violent conduct was established by one spouse party to the other
- the violent conduct had a discernible impact on the victim spouse
- the victim spouse's contributions to the relationship were made significantly more arduous as a result of the violent conduct.
Adjustments under the principles established in Kennon v Kennon proved difficult to argue and substantiate. Litigants were required to demonstrate that family violence had a 'discernible impact' on their contributions to the relationship – a threshold that often demanded detailed evidence and careful legal framing. Courts remained cautious in applying the adjustment, ensuring it did not become a default response to claims of abuse. As a result, many applications were unsuccessful, with the burden of proof resting heavily on the party seeking recognition of non-financial disadvantage. There is hope that the recent amendments will improve access to this form of relief.
How the Court assesses coercive control
Recent amendments to the Act now effectively 'codify' Kennon and explicitly require the Court to consider the impact of family violence both under section 79(4)(ca)/90SM(4)(ca) and section 79(5)(a)/90SM(5)(a) of the Act.
Assessing contributions (sections 79(4)(ca)/90SM(4))(ca))
In additional to assessing the financial and non-financial contributions made by a party to the property pool, the Court must also consider the effect of any family violence, including coercive control, as a factor that may have impaired a party's ability to contribute to the relationship or accumulate assets. This includes recognising situations where a party may have been financially dependent due to coercive behaviour or unable to pursue education or employment opportunities.
Assessing future needs (sections 79(5)/90SM(5))
In addition to considering how family violence affects a person's ability to contribute to the property pool, the impact of family violence is also taken into account when assessing a party's future needs.
For example, a larger adjustment may be necessary to cover future expenses, such as medical treatment, counselling and psychological support, that arise as a result of the family violence.
This holistic approach in assessing the impact of family violence ensures that the Court fully recognises the broader effects of violence, including trauma, ongoing health issues and the need for support services, which can influence a party's capacity to work, earn income and manage future expenses.
Intention not decisive
Under section 4AB of the Act, the perpetrator's intention is not required to establish coercive or controlling behaviour (Carter & Wilson [2023] FedCFam C1A 9). In Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFam C1A 249, Aldridge and Carew JJ, with McClelland DCJ concurring, confirmed that proving family violence involving coercion or control does not require showing the perpetrator intended such an effect. A person may be unaware of the impact of their behaviour or believe they are protecting the other family member, yet the behaviour can still constitute coercion or control and thus qualify as family violence.
As with any other contested matter in a civil jurisdiction, the standard of proof for an allegation of family violence, including coercive control, is based on the balance of probabilities. This means that a party must prove something is more likely than not to be true, essentially showing there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is correct.
This can be compared with the higher burden of proof used in criminal cases, which is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Criminalisation of coercive control in Queensland
With the passing of the Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, Queensland has introduced criminal offences specifically targeting coercive control within domestic relationships. As of 26 May 2025, coercive control is recognised as a criminal offence in Queensland with a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment.
It is important to note that initiating a criminal case or proving an allegation in criminal court is not required for the matter to be considered relevant in family law proceedings. However, it is reflective of the serious nature of coercive control and provides an additional avenue for victims to seek protection and justice beyond family law remedies.
Under these new amendments, the Court is further empowered to acknowledge that family violence, including coercive control, can severely restrict a person's opportunities and financial autonomy, thereby affecting their contributions and needs in family law proceedings, including property settlements.
If you are experiencing or have experienced family violence, including coercive control, it is crucial to understand your rights and the legal protections now available. This also applies if allegations of family violence have been or may be made against you.
Please contact us for a confidential consultation to discuss your situation and explore your options.
Cooper Grace Ward is a leading Australian law firm based in Brisbane.
This publication is for information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain advice that is specific to your circumstances and not rely on this publication as legal advice. If there are any issues you would like us to advise you on arising from this publication, please contact Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers.
