Domestic Violence in Family Law: Garnet & Garnet [2025] FedCFamC2F 1356

Domestic violence doesn't always leave a mark you can see. Sometimes it looks like a bank transfer that gets switched off the moment you mention divorce, a tax bill that appears out of nowhere, or a text message telling you that someone knows exactly where you are. A recent decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia confirms that conduct like this isn't just a red flag for a relationship — it can directly change how much of the family's wealth a person walks away with.

The Case: Garnet & Garnet [2025] FedCFamC2F 1356

In September 2025, Judge Street handed down judgment in a bitterly contested property matter following an 18-year marriage. The parties met in London in 2003, married in 2008, and had one son, now 15, who was born with a significant heart condition and was later diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder requiring substantial support. The family relocated to Australia in 2012, and the marriage broke down in mid-2023 — but domestic violence had been a feature of the relationship for far longer than that, and it sat at the centre of how the Court ultimately divided the couple's $3.2 million property pool.

A Pattern of Threats, Surveillance and Financial Control

The Court accepted a long history of family violence spanning the relationship. The husband had, at various points, assaulted the wife, forced his way into her home during a period of separation, and threatened to break her legs when she raised the idea of divorce. In the lead-up to separation, he threatened to kill her, making a slicing gesture across his throat during their mediation — conduct that led directly to a domestic violence order being made against him. He tracked her phone location while she was overseas with their son and told her he knew exactly where she was. Their son wasn't shielded from any of this: he was present when police attended to arrest his mother in the middle of the night, after the husband made a retaliatory complaint the moment he was served with her court application.

Just as significant was what happened to the money. Domestic violence isn't limited to physical acts — the law also recognises economic and financial abuse as a form of family violence, and this case shows exactly what that looks like in practice. Each time the wife raised the prospect of separation, the husband suspended the dividend payments she and their son relied on to live, only restoring them once she backed down. On one occasion he engineered a tax debt of more than $100,000 in her name and made clear it would disappear if she reconciled with him. He also signed her name to legal documents without her knowledge. None of this involved a raised fist, but all of it was designed to keep her financially trapped.

How the Court Turned That Into a 55/45 Property Split

Family law requires the Court to weigh financial and non-financial contributions to a marriage as equally valid ways of building a life together. Here, the husband's direct financial contributions — built on a company he founded before the relationship began — were found to be significantly greater. But the wife's contributions as homemaker and primary carer of a child with high support needs were found to be "far greater," and critically, the Court found those contributions had been made substantially more arduous by the husband's family violence. That's a specific legal finding under section 79(4)(ca) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — a provision strengthened by reforms that commenced in June 2025, but which builds on principles the courts have applied since the 1997 case of Kennon & Kennon.

Rather than handing down two separate figures — a contributions percentage, then a bolt-on adjustment — Judge Street weighed the family violence, the contributions, and the parties' future circumstances together to reach one final outcome: 55% of the pool to the wife, 45% to the husband. Two future-focused factors mattered most in getting there. The 14-year age gap between the parties affected how much working life each had left to rebuild their finances. And their son's needs, while significant now at age 15, were found likely to continue well past his 18th birthday — meaning the wife's caring responsibilities, and the impact of the husband's controlling conduct on her ability to work, would keep affecting her for years to come.

What This Case Means for You

If a partner switches your access to money on and off depending on whether you comply with them, creates debts in your name, monitors your movements, or threatens you when you talk about leaving, that isn't just a difficult relationship. Under Australian family law, it's domestic violence — and as this case shows, it can directly shift how a property settlement is decided.

Keep records where it's safe to do so. Bank statements, screenshots of threatening messages, and dates of incidents can become powerful evidence, just as they did here. You don't need to have already left a relationship to start documenting what's happening to you.

If you're currently in a relationship affected by violence, know that the law now looks specifically at how that conduct has made your contributions to the family harder, and at how it continues to affect your future. You don't need to prove physical violence alone — financial control counts too.

At Surge Legal, we help clients navigate family law property settlements with a clear understanding of how domestic violence, financial control and disclosure obligations can affect the outcome. If your situation involves any of these issues, we encourage you to get in touch with our team.

📞 (02) 8551 7851 📩 Contact us online | Book a consultation

For more information, visit our Property Matters and Parenting Matters pages.

This article is a general summary of Garnet & Garnet [2025] FedCFamC2F 1356 for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Surge Legal to discuss your individual circumstances.