In June 2025, the Family Law Act was amended to include specific reference to the impact of family and domestic violence on a person’s financial or non-financial contributions to the relationship. This amendment to the Act enshrines a commonly relied upon precedent first established in the landmark case of Kennon v Kennon [1997] FamCA 27.
In June 2025, the Family Law Act was amended to include specific reference to the impact of family and domestic violence on a person’s financial or non-financial contributions to the relationship.
So what actually happened in Kennon?
Facts of the case
Relationship length and background
- The parties began living together in 1989 and married in 1991.
- They lived together for about five years before separating in 1994.
- There were no children of the marriage.
Financial circumstances during the relationship
- Mr Kennon was very wealthy, he owned and operated a highly successful advertising agency, earning around $1 million per year.
- At the commencement of the relationship Mrs Kennon earned $45,000 per year.
- At the time of trial, she earned $36,000 per year.
- The parties kept largely separate finances during the relationship.
- The net asset pool was about $8.8 million at trial (in 1997 dollars).
Domestic and family violence
- Mrs Kennon alleged seven specific incidents of physical assaults by Mr Kennon during the marriage.
- Mrs Kennon also alleged ongoing abusive behaviour including repeated aggressive, threatening and intimidating behaviour which create a climate of fear and oppression.
Contributions
- Mr Kennon was the primary income earner by a very significant margin.
- Mrs Kennon was the primary home-maker.
Impact of violence
- Health Effects
- Mrs Kennon’s GP provided evidence that Mrs Kennon was diagnosed with an anxiety state in 1992 and that over the following year, she experienced lethargy, anorexia, lightheadedness, fainting, and shingles, and reported feeling unhappy and stressed.
- The GP’s contemporaneous file notes over an eight-year period were especially compelling—they corroborated her affidavit evidence and documented the changes in her health before, during, and after the relationship.
- Psychiatric Evidence and Diagnosis
- The psychiatrist engaged by Mr Kennon supported the GP’s findings, diagnosing Mrs Kennon with an adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety, which had “predominantly resolved” by the time of trial.
Court’s first decision
After the trial, the Court determined that Mrs Kennon should receive $400,000 of the $8,800,000 pool (4.5%) and that Mr Kennon should retain $8,600,0000 of the pool (95.5%).
The $400,000 retained by Mrs Kennon was made up of $200,000 as a result of her contributions, and an additional adjustment of $200,000 after the future needs and other factors were considered.
Appeal
On appeal, the Full Court held that the violent conduct had made Mrs Kennon’s contributions to the marriage significantly more arduous than they would otherwise have been, warranting an adjustment in her favour.
“Where there is a course of violent conduct by one party towards the other during the marriage which is demonstrated to have had a significant adverse impact upon that party’s contributions to the marriage, or, put the other way, to have made his or her contributions significantly more arduous than they ought to have been, that is a fact which a trial judge is entitled to take into account in assessing the parties’ respective contributions.“
But caution should be used. Kennon is the exception, not the rule. The Full Court also said in the appeal judgement:
“[it] is essential to bear in mind the relatively narrow band of cases to which these considerations apply. To be relevant, it would be necessary to show that the conduct occurred during the course of the marriage and had a discernible impact upon the contributions of the other party.“
Appeal decision
The Full Court increased the amount Mrs Kennon would receive from the property pool from $400,000 (4.5%) to $700,000 (8%), increasing her entitlement by 3.5% as a result of the impact of the persistent domestic violence perpetrated against her during the marriage by Mr Kennon.
Since Kennon
There has been a line of cases that refine and steer the “Kennon arguments”. It has become clear in these lines of authority that there is an emphasis on the need to make a connection between the violence suffered and the adverse impact on the victim’s contributions to the relationship.
Kennon arguments are often most successfully used when furnished as a “defence” to counter the perpetrator’s argument that the victim made a lesser contribution to the relationship than they would be expected to.
In other words, Kennon arguments should be relied upon only where it has had a significant adverse impact upon a victim’s contributions to the welfare of the family or ability to engage in gainful employment so that the perpetrator is unable to gain any financial benefit by relying on the victim’s reduced physical or emotional capacity to contribute.
Evidence is key
Parties who make a Kennon argument must ensure their evidence is comprehensive and draws a nexus between the violence and the impact. Expert and medical evidence is extremely common in cases where a Kennon argument is successfully made.
Where does that leave us?
There is yet to be a case as seminal as Kennon since the 10 June 2025 amendments to the Family Law Act which has put the spotlight on the effect of family violence on a party’s contributions to the relationship or marriage.
If you’ve been impacted by family violence and are seeking property settlement, contact us today to find out how we can help you. Click here to book in for a free initial consultation.