Kennon v Kennon [1997] FamCA 27 – Family Violence and Contributions in Property Settlements

Kennon v Kennon [1997] FamCA 27 – Family Violence and Contributions in Property Settlements

Citation: Kennon v Kennon [1997] FamCA 27 (Full Court of the Family Court of Australia).

What the case decided

The Full Court held that a pattern of violent conduct that has a discernible, adverse impact on a party’s contributions to the marriage or de facto relationship can justify an adjustment in the division of property. The court clarified that such conduct is not merely background context but a relevant factor when assessing the parties’ contributions under s 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Key facts

• The marriage lasted approximately 13 years.
• The husband subjected the wife to repeated physical violence, including assaults that caused her to require medical treatment and time off work.
• As a result of the violence, the wife’s capacity to earn income and make financial contributions was significantly impaired.
• At trial, the judge found that the wife’s contributions were lower due to the violence but did not adjust the property division on that basis.
• On appeal, the Full Court disagreed, stating that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the impact of the violence on the wife’s contributions.

Principle established

The Court articulated the following principle (often quoted):

“Where a party has suffered a violent assault or a pattern of violent conduct by the other party, and that conduct has had a discernible adverse impact on the victim’s contributions to the marriage, the court may take that into account when determining what adjustment, if any, should be made to the parties’ respective contributions.”

In effect, violent conduct that diminishes a victim’s ability to contribute financially or non‑financially can be a basis for adjusting the property split in favour of the victim.

How the principle is applied today

1. Identify the violent conduct – The party alleging the impact must show a pattern or incident of violence (physical, sexual, or sometimes severe emotional abuse) that is proven on the balance of probabilities.
2. Demonstrate the impact on contributions – Evidence must link the violence to a reduction in the victim’s ability to earn income, perform homemaking/parenting duties, or otherwise contribute to the marital estate (e.g., medical records, proof of lost work time, psychiatric reports).
3. Consider the timing and severity – The impact must be discernible; isolated or trivial incidents may not suffice.
4. Adjustment – If the test is satisfied, the court may increase the victim’s percentage share of the property pool to reflect the diminished contribution caused by the violence.

Relationship to later reforms

The Kennon principle was later reinforced and expanded by statutory amendments. The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) was amended to expressly require the court to consider the effect of family violence when assessing contributions (s 79(4)) and future needs (s 75(2)(o)). Kennon remains the leading case illustrating the underlying rationale.

Practical takeaway

If you have suffered family violence that impaired your ability to work, earn income, or perform household duties, you can rely on Kennon v Kennon to argue that the court should adjust the property settlement to compensate for the loss of your contributions. Supporting evidence such as medical reports, police records, witness statements, and documentation of lost earnings is crucial.

See also

• What is a Property Pool and How Do Add‑Backs Work? – /faq/family/property-pool-and-addbacks/
• How Does the Family Law Property Settlement Process Work? – /faq/family/property-settlement-process-basics/
• Economic abuse in family law – /faq/family/economic-abuse-family-law-queensland/
• Domestic Violence Orders – /faq/domestic-violence/what-is-a-dvo-qld/