Family violence and property settlements: what makes a contributions argument succeed?

Franc v Franc [2026] FedCFamC1A 159 is a timely reminder that a party relying on family violence in property proceedings must establish both the conduct and its effect on contributions. But what does a successful argument actually look like?

The earlier cases offer practical answers. They recognise parenting carried out through fear and exhaustion, household and property work undertaken in pain, and caring contributions maintained despite sustained degradation. They also show that continuing to work, study or care for children does not mean the violence had no effect.

The reminder in Franc

In Franc, the wife argued that the primary judge had not properly considered family violence when assessing contributions under s 79(4)(ca) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

The Full Court described that provision as codifying the Kennon principle (Kennon v Kennon (1997) 22 Fam LR 1) as subsequently developed. It adopted the question identified in Martell v Martell (2023) 66 Fam LR 650 at [25]: whether the conduct had a discernible effect on contributions warranting recognition. At [132], it confirmed that the party alleging that effect bears the onus of establishing both the violence and its adverse impact on their ability to contribute.

At [148], the Court set out the preferable sequence. The first step is to determine whether family violence occurred. The next is to assess its nature, extent and context. Only then does the court consider its discernible impact on contributions. The Court emphasised assessing patterns of coercive control in context, and it rejected artificial barriers to recognising family violence.

The family violence ground nevertheless failed. At [153], the Court found insufficient particularity in allegations the primary judge had not addressed. It also found that the collective impact of the alleged conduct had not been articulated at trial, where final submissions concentrated on financial control. The rejection of that allegation was therefore reasonably open.

Franc directs attention to both the evidence and the way the argument is presented. The successful cases show several ways the necessary connection has been established.

Benson and Drury: the burden of continuing to work and parent

Benson v Drury (2020) 62 Fam LR 1 is a particularly concrete example because the Full Court reproduced the wife’s unchallenged affidavit evidence about the effect of the violence on her contributions.

Her account went beyond describing assaults and distress. She explained that cleaning, cooking and raising the children were done in fear that imperfect performance might provoke further abuse. Anxiety, fatigue and bruising made household tasks more burdensome. Disrupted sleep and impaired concentration made it harder to care for newborn babies, compounding the ordinary demands of infant care.

She described the exhausting uncertainty of not knowing what would provoke the next incident, or whether the children would be harmed. She tried to keep the children happy and well cared for while also trying to avoid further abuse.

Her evidence addressed study and employment too. The chaotic home environment made it difficult to write and complete her qualifications. After she completed them, the abuse continued to affect her concentration at work. Anticipating physical or verbal abuse when she returned home made it hard to focus, but she persisted because she needed financial independence.

Full-time work, continuing household and parenting responsibilities, and the effort of avoiding or managing abuse left her little opportunity to recover.

At first instance, in Drury v Benson [No 2] [2020] FCCA 250 at [152]–[163], the husband relied on her qualifications and university employment to suggest that the violence had not affected her. Judge Kari (as her Honour then was) rejected that reasoning. Achievement did not establish that maintaining employment and study had been easy or without significant burden. Nor was it necessary to show that her education or career had suffered before her argument could succeed.

The Full Court expressly found ample unchallenged evidence that her contributions, both during the relationship and over the lengthy post-separation period, had been significantly more arduous. It considered that the absence of corroboration was meaningless where the reliability of her evidence had not been challenged.

The appeal nevertheless exposed an error in method. The trial judge had assessed contributions as otherwise equal and then allowed a separate five-percentage-point addition for violence. The Full Court held that contributions had to be assessed holistically.

Considering all the evidence, it assessed contributions at 55/45 in the wife’s favour. With the further unchallenged adjustment for other circumstances, the final 60/40 division remained undisturbed and the appeal was dismissed.

The case shows both what persuaded the Court and how the finding should be used: evidence linking violence to the effort involved in parenting, homemaking and employment, assessed within the totality of contributions.

Wallington and Spina: contributing while in pain

In Wallington v Spina [No 2] [2023] FedCFamC2F 1017, Judge Eldershaw connected violence to both physical limitations and psychological burdens.

While escaping the husband’s demand for sex, the wife fell onto existing fracture sites. She experienced immense pain, could not walk properly for two weeks and found no relief even lying down. In another assault, the husband grabbed previously injured parts of her body, causing severe pain.

The court expressly connected the pain, physical limitations and fear to more arduous contributions. Her existing injuries amplified the burden.

The reasons also identified the work she performed during later family violence: cleaning, gardening, mowing and paying rates. She undertook those contributions while experiencing fear and hypervigilance.

The violence was recognised within an overall contributions assessment of 14.5% to the wife. That figure was her total contributions assessment, not a 14.5% allowance for violence.

The practical value lies in the connection between identified consequences and identifiable work. Pain and fear were considered in the context of the contributions actually being made.

Kucera: employment and protective parenting

In Kucera v Kucera [2009] FMCAfam 1032, Altobelli FM (as his Honour then was) considered a 26-year marriage marked by sustained coercive controlling violence against the wife and children.

The wife contributed through full-time and part-time employment and as principal homemaker and parent. She described complying with the husband’s demands because she feared being killed, and trying to protect and shield the children.

The court had evidence from the wife, her three daughters and the family doctor, supported by contemporaneous records. The judge expressly found adequate evidence connecting the violence to more arduous contributions.

The court allowed 15 percentage points, assessing contributions at 65% to the wife. Her subsequent ability to prosper after separation did not erase the circumstances in which she had contributed during the marriage.

The case illustrates evidence that addresses more than the assaults themselves. Fear, injury, efforts to protect the children, and continuing employment and family responsibilities all formed part of the account the court accepted.

Maddox and Merz: caring under degrading conditions

In Maddox v Merz [2014] FCCA 2158, Judge Altobelli (as his Honour then was) considered the wife’s contributions as homemaker and carer for the husband. His Honour rejected the husband’s suggestion that she had done nothing.

Her account included verbal abuse, repeated denigration and the husband’s use of sex workers while she was present in the home. The court accepted her evidence, including the fear she expressed.

At [32]–[37], the judge identified her contributions and found that the abusive conduct made performing them much more difficult. Her contributions were assessed at 10% before considering the violence, with a further 10 percentage points allowed. A separate future-needs assessment produced a final entitlement of 30%.

The reasons were comparatively brief, but the finding connecting abuse to caring and homemaking was express. The case demonstrates a successful argument built on degrading behaviour and its effect on the conditions under which care was provided.

Kozovska and Kozovski: imperfect particulars

Kozovska v Kozovski [2009] FMCAfam 1014 provides a further example. Altobelli FM (as his Honour then was) accepted evidence of sustained assaults, strangulation, threats and financial coercion, corroborated by the parties’ daughter.

Some incidents were described without precise dates. The wife nevertheless gave concrete accounts of the conduct and its circumstances. She described feeling powerless while continuing to earn money for food and clothing for herself and the children.

The judge found that the violence and its impacts made her contributions significantly more arduous, and allowed 10 percentage points in the contributions assessment.

It is a useful example of a successful argument despite imperfect particulars. The evidence was assessed as a whole and tested in cross-examination. Precise dates, and an express explanation of every causal step, were not features of all the evidence accepted.

What the successful arguments demonstrate

These cases identify several ways violence can affect contributions. A parent may continue caring for children despite fear, exhaustion and impaired concentration. A spouse may maintain property while injured. A person may continue providing care while being intimidated or degraded.

The evidence should explain the client’s actual experience. What work did they continue doing? What physical or psychological consequences did they experience? How did those consequences affect the effort required, the way tasks were performed or the responsibilities they carried?

Benson v Drury is particularly useful because it shows the value of explaining the ordinary work of family life. Cooking, cleaning, settling babies, studying and attending work all continued. The evidence showed how fear, disrupted sleep, injury and exhaustion made those contributions harder.

Corroborating records and witnesses can assist. Reasonable inferences can also connect established facts with their effect on contributions. The connection need not always be expressed through a detailed account of each task, but it must have an evidentiary foundation.

Franc also reminds practitioners to carry the argument through to submissions. Where a cumulative pattern is relied upon, the submissions should bring the proposed findings together and explain their significance for contributions.

The historical percentage allowances are examples of outcomes. As Benson v Drury makes clear, the effect of violence belongs within the holistic assessment of contributions. What the successful cases recognise is the additional burden under which those contributions were made.