Domestic Violence, Property

How Family Violence Influences Property Settlements

How Family Violence Influences Property Settlements

The Full Court’s decision in Pantoja & Pantoja [2025] FedCFamC1A 104 provides important clarification on how family violence should be treated when assessing contributions in family law property settlements. 

In Pantoja, the wife presented evidence of significant family violence during and after the parties’ long relationship. The primary judge accepted that the violence made her contributions “more difficult, arduous and onerous”. The Court ultimately awarded her 59% of the non-superannuation asset pool, when her contributions during the relationship were otherwise equal. The husband appealed.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal on most grounds but upheld it on one key issue: the primary judge did not adequately explain how the family violence adjustment led to the final percentage division, nor whether other statutory factors (such as future needs under s 75(2)) influenced the outcome.

Below, we explore the legal principles clarified in Pantoja, and what they mean for people experiencing relationship breakdown—particularly those affected by domestic and family violence.

1. Family Violence Can Justify an Adjustment to Contributions

The Court reaffirmed that family violence can justify a contributions-based adjustment where the victim’s contributions were made more onerous or difficult as a result of the violence.

This principle—often referred to as a Kennon-type argument—recognises that violence:

  • disrupts parenting capacity,

  • undermines a victim’s ability to participate in financial life,

  • increases the emotional and labour burden of homemaking and childcare.

The Court accepted this reasoning in Pantoja, as the evidence showed a pattern of violence that directly impacted the wife’s contributions over many years.

2. Adjustments Must Be Assessed Holistically, Not Isolated

A major focus of the appeal was whether the primary judge “carved out” a separate family-violence percentage, instead of integrating the impact into a holistic contributions analysis.

The Full Court referred to key authorities—Benson & Drury, Jabour, Elmanu and Gadhavi—which emphasise that:

  • courts must weigh all contributions collectively,

  • family violence is one aspect of contributions, not an isolated mathematical add-on.

However, these are guidelines, not rigid rules. The Court reiterated long-standing High Court authority (Mallett v Mallett) that property-settlement discretion is broad. Structured approaches assist predictability, but they cannot “fetter” the Court’s duty to reach a “just and equitable” outcome.

3. Family Violence May Also Be Relevant to Future Needs (s 75(2))

Importantly, the Court confirmed that family violence may be relevant not only to contributions but also to future needs. For example:

  • trauma may reduce earning capacity,

  • health issues may require long-term support,

  • workforce participation may be impacted.

If the Court relies on violence under s 75(2), it must explain the predictive, prospective factors linking the violence to future disadvantage (Boulton & Boulton).

In Pantoja, this reasoning was missing—leading to appellate error.

4. The Problem in Pantoja: Inadequate Reasons for the Final Split

Although the primary judge carefully analysed the evidence of violence, the Full Court found the reasoning leading to the 59/41% division was unclear. Specifically, the judgment did not disclose:

  • whether the 9% uplift was solely due to family violence,

  • whether s 75(2) factors also influenced the outcome,

  • how the judge moved from equal contributions to a significantly different division.

Because this reasoning gap made appellate review impossible, the appeal succeeded.

This is a strong reminder that transparency in reasoning is essential, especially when family violence is a factor.

5. What This Means for Separating Couples—and Their Lawyers

For victim-survivors

This decision confirms that:

  • the Court can recognise the real impact of family violence in property settlements,

  • violence does not need to be physical—ongoing coercive or controlling behaviour may also be relevant,

  • evidence matters: diaries, disclosures to professionals, text messages, and witness testimony can all be critical.

For legal practitioners

Pantoja underscores the need to:

  • carefully link evidence of violence to its effect on a party’s contributions,

  • consider whether the violence also affects future needs,

  • ensure submissions (and judgments) clearly articulate how the final percentage is derived.

For those navigating separation

This case is a reminder that property settlements are not merely financial exercises. They involve:

  • assessing the lived experience of the relationship,

  • recognising the burdens borne by victim-survivors,

  • ensuring the final outcome is “just and equitable” in light of all circumstances.

Conclusion

In property law cases, family violence matters—not as a punishment to the perpetrator, but because it shapes the reality of a victim’s contributions and future needs.

For anyone leaving an unsafe relationship, especially after years of financial, emotional or physical abuse, this decision is a reminder that the law can (and should) recognise the additional burdens you carried.

If you are experiencing domestic or family violence, confidential support is available through 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732).

If you need advice about how family violence may affect your property settlement, Powell Family Law can help. Reach out today to book a strategy meeting with our team.

Natalie Powell