Of course. As a Senior Legal Content Specialist, I will now provide an in-depth analysis of the provided judgment, strictly adhering to all specified instructions, formatting, and legal standards.

Family Law Property Settlement: How is the asset pool divided after a 48-year marriage involving family violence and unilateral financial dealings?

Introduction

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Aikema & Aikema [2025] FedCFamC1F 550, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

• Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1)
• Presiding Judge: Carter J
• Cause of Action: Property Settlement pursuant to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
• Judgment Date: 15 August 2025
• Core Keywords:
  • Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
  • Keyword 2: Family Law
  • Keyword 3: Property Settlement
  • Keyword 4: Family Violence
  • Keyword 5: Kennon Claim
  • Keyword 6: Addbacks

Background

This case involves the division of matrimonial property following the breakdown of a 48-year marriage. The parties, both in their late sixties, had accumulated assets primarily during their long union, having started with very little. The husband was the main financial contributor through employment and a business venture, while the wife was the primary homemaker and parent to their three adult children. The financial landscape was complicated by inheritances received by both parties at different stages and a series of significant cash withdrawals made by the husband in the years leading up to the separation. A central and contentious issue was the wife’s claim that her contributions throughout the marriage were made significantly more arduous due to a long and sustained course of family violence perpetrated by the husband.

Core Disputes and Claims

The litigation centred on two main areas of conflict. Firstly, the composition and valuation of the asset pool was heavily disputed. The wife sought to have substantial cash withdrawals made by the husband notionally “added back” to the pool, alleging he had dissipated these funds for his own benefit. There were also disagreements over the value of several vehicles, business equipment, and items the husband had allegedly transferred or sold for undervalue post-separation. Secondly, the Court was required to assess the parties’ respective contributions. This involved not only their financial and non-financial roles but also the wife’s claim for an adjustment in her favour on the basis that the husband’s family violence made her contributions as a homemaker and parent significantly more difficult—a claim made pursuant to the principles established in Kennon v Kennon.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The husband and wife were both born in Country G, marrying there in 1977 before moving to Australia later that same year. Over their 48-year marriage, they built a life together, raised three sons, and engaged in various financial endeavours, including purchasing and selling properties and running a construction business, J Pty Ltd, from approximately 2010 to 2019.

Throughout the marriage, the husband was the primary income earner, while the wife managed the household and cared for the children, also providing administrative support to the family business. The financial dynamic was punctuated by two inheritances: the wife received approximately $92,790 from her father’s estate in 2007, which she used for furniture, travel, and personal savings, while the husband received $169,196 from his mother’s estate in 2021, late in the relationship.

The marital relationship, however, was fraught with conflict. The wife’s evidence, corroborated by her adult children, painted a picture of the husband’s long-term abusive, intimidating, and controlling behaviour, often exacerbated by excessive alcohol consumption. This conduct created a climate of fear and isolation for the wife, which she endured for decades.

The final breakdown occurred in 2022. While the husband was temporarily staying with his cousin, the wife, with the help of her son Mr K and daughter-in-law Ms L, attempted to move out of the matrimonial home. The husband returned unexpectedly, leading to a heated confrontation during which he allegedly threatened the wife. This incident resulted in police intervention, a Family Violence Safety Notice being issued against the husband, and his removal from the home. Although an interim Intervention Order was later withdrawn by police, the event marked the definitive end of the parties’ cohabitation, setting the stage for complex and contentious property settlement proceedings.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The wife’s case was built on a foundation of consistent and mutually corroborating evidence. Her primary arguments were:
* Family Violence: She presented extensive affidavit evidence detailing a long history of physical, verbal, and financial abuse by the husband. This was supported by affidavits from her sons, Mr K and Mr M, and her daughter-in-law, Ms L, who all recounted specific incidents of the husband’s aggression and controlling behaviour. Crucially, her claims were substantiated by contemporaneous medical records, including a GP referral from 2005 and a psychiatrist’s report from 2011, which documented her reports of the husband’s abuse and its impact on her mental health long before the separation.
* Financial Depletion: The wife tendered bank statements showing approximately $173,000 in cash withdrawals made by the husband from three separate accounts between 2021 and 2022. She argued these funds were dissipated for his sole benefit and should be notionally added back to the asset pool.
* Asset Concealment and Undervaluation: She alleged the husband had failed to comply with court orders to sell certain business items (compressors, trailers, machinery) and had transferred other assets (firearms, a trailer) to his cousin for no consideration. She also disputed the husband’s valuation of several items, including a shipping container he claimed to have sold for only $500.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The husband’s case rested almost entirely on his own testimony, which sought to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and reframe the narrative. His key arguments were:
* Denial of Violence: He categorically denied all allegations of physical and verbal abuse, claiming they were a complete fabrication and part of a conspiracy orchestrated by the wife and their children to remove him from the family home and secure a more favourable financial outcome.
* Explanation of Finances: He provided various explanations for the large cash withdrawals. He claimed some funds were a gift to his son Mr M from his mother’s estate, some were used for renovations, and others were for business expenses. He denied that the withdrawals were for his sole benefit.
* Dispute over Asset Sales: He argued that the wife had allowed vehicles and other items to be sold at auction for less than their market value. He also maintained that items like the shipping container and a trailer were sold for the amounts he stated.

Core Dispute Points

1. Credibility: The central dispute was a stark “he said, she said” conflict regarding family violence. The Court had to determine whether the wife and her witnesses were telling the truth or if the husband’s claims of a family-wide conspiracy were plausible.
2. The Add-Backs: The Court had to decide whether the husband’s cash withdrawals, made shortly before separation, constituted a premature distribution or wastage of assets that should be notionally returned to the asset pool for division.
3. Valuation and Disposal of Assets: The Court was required to make findings on the value of numerous chattels where no formal valuations existed and where one party had failed to comply with orders for sale, forcing the Court to determine how to account for these items.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

The affidavits filed in this case were pivotal in establishing the evidentiary foundation and ultimately, the credibility of the parties.

The wife constructed a powerful and cohesive narrative through her own affidavit and those of her supporting witnesses. Her detailed accounts of specific incidents of abuse, stretching back decades, were given context and weight by the corroborating affidavits of her sons and daughter-in-law. Each affidavit, while detailing different personal recollections, painted a consistent picture of the husband’s volatile temper and controlling behaviour. This consistency across multiple witnesses created a strong chain of evidence. Furthermore, the wife’s affidavit was supported by objective, third-party documents, such as historical medical referrals, which demonstrated that her complaints of abuse were not a recent invention for the purposes of litigation but were part of a long-standing pattern.

In stark contrast, the husband’s affidavit was largely comprised of broad denials and counter-accusations of a conspiracy. A critical blow to his credibility came from his own evidence: he annexed a photograph of a man in a ripped shirt, purporting it to be him after an alleged assault by his son, Mr K. However, under cross-examination, he was forced to admit the photograph was not of him at all. This act of presenting knowingly false evidence fundamentally undermined the entirety of his sworn testimony. His failure to specifically address each of the wife’s detailed allegations, opting instead for general denials, weakened his position and left many of her claims effectively unchallenged with credible evidence.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing, the Court had made several procedural directions aimed at preparing the matter for determination. The most significant of these were orders made on 20 December 2023, which required the parties to arrange for the sale by auction of various tools, equipment, machinery, and vehicles. These orders specified the appointment of auctioneers and stipulated that certain items in the possession of both the wife (at the former matrimonial home) and the husband were to be sold.

Crucially, the husband failed to comply with these orders in respect of the items in his possession, which included two compressors, a machine, and two trailers. This non-compliance became a significant issue at the final hearing, as it meant these assets had not been converted to cash and their value remained in dispute. The husband’s failure to adhere to the Court’s directions was later considered by the Judge as part of his overall conduct and influenced the final determination.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The final hearing began not with evidence, but with a series of procedural challenges initiated by the husband’s counsel. An application to adjourn the trial due to the husband’s alleged ill-health was dismissed by the Court, which found the generic medical certificate provided was insufficient to establish he was unfit to participate. This was followed by protracted arguments regarding interpreter arrangements and an unsuccessful attempt by counsel to cross-examine the wife’s interpreter. These events culminated in an oral application for the Judge to recuse himself on the grounds of apprehended bias.

The Court methodically dismissed the recusal application, finding no logical connection between the procedural rulings made and any suggestion of partiality. In delivering his reasons, His Honour, Carter J, noted the context of the exchange that led to the application:

My refusal to allow the husband’s counsel to cross-examine an interpreter could not possibly suggest I would not determine the matter on its merits. Counsel for the husband failed to identify what would be the purpose of allowing him to use Court time set aside for the resolution of a property dispute between the husband and the wife to cross-examine a Court appointed interpreter.

This firm handling of the preliminary skirmishes set a clear tone for the remainder of the hearing, signalling that the Court’s focus was squarely on the substantive evidence and the merits of the case.

The cross-examination of the husband proved devastating to his credibility. When confronted with bank statements showing contemporaneous cash withdrawals from two different accounts—one being his son’s—at the same ATM within minutes of each other, he could offer no plausible explanation. His assertion that the funds in his son’s account were a gift was undermined by his own admission that he regularly used the card for that account. His claims that large cash withdrawals were for “business expenses” were untenable, given the business had ceased trading almost 17 months prior.

The wife and her witnesses, in contrast, remained steadfast and consistent under cross-examination. Their emotional but clear recollections of specific events, combined with the objective medical evidence, created an overwhelming evidentiary picture. The Court found their evidence to be credible and genuine, accepting their accounts of the husband’s long-term abusive and controlling behaviour.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

Having assessed all the evidence and weighed the contributions and future needs of the parties, the Court made the following orders:

1. That within 30 days, the former matrimonial home be placed on the market for sale.
2. Upon settlement of the sale, the net proceeds be applied first to pay the costs of the sale, with the remaining balance to be divided such that the wife receives 57 per cent and the husband receives 43 per cent.
3. An additional sum of $30,398 is to be paid to the wife from the husband’s share of the proceeds.
4. The net proceeds from the auction of various chattels, currently held by the auctioneers, are to be divided 57 per cent to the wife and 43 per cent to the husband.
5. Each party is to retain all other property in their possession, and the parties are to be solely responsible for any liabilities in their own names.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

The jurisprudential significance of this judgment lies in its practical and holistic application of established family law principles. Firstly, it serves as a contemporary example of the Court giving significant weight to a Kennon claim in a long marriage. The Judge meticulously connected the husband’s violent and controlling behaviour, corroborated by both family testimony and contemporaneous medical records, to the wife’s contributions being made “more arduous.” This reinforces that family violence is not merely a background factor but can directly influence the percentage division of assets. Secondly, the judgment provides a clear illustration of the Court’s discretion under Section 75(2)(o) of the Family Law Act 1975. Rather than getting entangled in the complex and often speculative exercise of “adding back” dissipated funds, Carter J chose to address the husband’s financial recklessness and non-disclosure as a relevant matter affecting the justice and equity of the outcome. This pragmatic approach allowed the Court to achieve a fair result without being constrained by the rigid mechanics of add-backs, offering a useful pathway for practitioners in similar cases.

Judgment Points

A notable aspect of this case was the Judge’s firm management of the proceedings. The detailed dismissal of the husband’s recusal application at the outset of the judgment is significant. By methodically dismantling each ground of the application—from the adjournment refusal to the interpreter arrangements—His Honour not only affirmed his impartiality but also sent a clear signal that unmeritorious procedural tactics would not derail the substantive hearing. This section of the judgment serves as a valuable case study for practitioners on the high bar required for a successful recusal application and the importance of articulating a logical connection between a judge’s conduct and an apprehension of bias.

Legal Basis

The judgment is firmly anchored in the foundational sections of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The entire process was governed by the Court’s obligation under Section 79(2) to not make an order unless it is just and equitable to do so. The assessment of contributions was conducted pursuant to Section 79(4), which requires the Court to evaluate financial, non-financial, and homemaker/parent contributions. The adjustment for the husband’s financial misconduct and the wife’s future needs was made under the broad, discretionary power of Section 75(2)(o), which allows the Court to consider “any other fact or circumstance which the justice of the case requires to be taken into account.”

Evidence Chain

The wife’s victory was built upon a powerful and multi-layered evidence chain. The cornerstone was the corroboration of her testimony. Her personal account of abuse was not a standalone claim; it was independently supported by her three closest family members. More importantly, this testimonial evidence was anchored by objective, contemporaneous documents. Medical records from as early as 2001, where she reported the husband’s abuse to her doctor, were crucial in defeating the husband’s argument that her allegations were a recent fabrication designed for litigation advantage. This demonstrates the immense power of a consistent narrative backed by third-party, historical records.

Judicial Original Quotation

In assessing the credibility of the husband’s financial explanations, Carter J was unequivocal. The husband’s failure to provide any logical or documented reason for his significant cash withdrawals was a turning point. On the issue of family violence, the Court gave significant weight to the wife’s evidence and its impact, as supported by her psychologist, Ms N. In her report, Ms N concluded:

…symptoms of anxiety and depression have been present since 2011 and have interfered with [the wife’s] functioning. Consistent themes of rumination include her husband’s unpleasant behaviour and [the wife’s] efforts to minimize conflict with him. Patterns of low mood, low self esteem and hopelessness are also linked with her experience of her husband’s behaviour as she has felt unable to reduce or avoid his angry behaviour toward her.

This clinical assessment provided a crucial link between the husband’s conduct and the tangible, adverse impact on the wife, forming a solid basis for the Court’s finding that her contributions were made significantly more arduous.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The husband’s case failed primarily due to a complete collapse of his credibility. His decision to include a fabricated photograph in his sworn affidavit was a fatal error from which his case could not recover. Beyond this, his failure was systemic:

1. Lack of Corroboration: He made serious allegations of a conspiracy but called no independent witnesses (such as his sister or his cousin, Mr F) to support his version of events regarding the inheritance or the transfer of assets.
2. Inconsistent and Implausible Explanations: His reasons for the large cash withdrawals were contradictory and defied logic, particularly the claim of paying for “business expenses” 17 months after the business had ceased trading.
3. Non-Compliance with Court Orders: His blatant disregard for court orders requiring the sale of assets demonstrated a lack of respect for the judicial process and further weakened his position.
4. Misconceived Legal Arguments: His counsel’s arguments regarding interpreters, the recusal application, and the status of the wife’s psychologist demonstrated a misunderstanding of fundamental legal and procedural principles, which did not assist his case.

Implications

1. The Enduring Impact of Family Violence: This case reaffirms that long-term family violence is not just a personal tragedy but a significant factor with financial consequences in property law. Contributions made under duress, fear, and control are valued differently.
2. Credibility is Everything: Your conduct, both before and during litigation, matters immensely. Presenting false evidence, being evasive, or failing to comply with court orders can destroy your credibility and your case.
3. Document Everything: The wife’s case was significantly strengthened by contemporaneous medical records. Keeping records of significant events, communications, and financial transactions provides objective evidence that is difficult to challenge.
4. Vague Explanations are Not Enough: In financial disputes, you cannot simply say money was spent on “living expenses” or “business costs.” The Court expects clear evidence, and a failure to provide it can lead to adverse findings.
5. Seek Professional Advice Early: The husband’s attempts to manage assets and respond to allegations without a clear, evidence-based strategy led to a series of unforced errors. Engaging with competent legal advice early can prevent such critical mistakes.

Q&A Session

1. Why didn’t the Court just “add back” the $173,000 the husband withdrew?

While the Court found the husband had likely spent the money for his own benefit, “notional add-backs” are an exception, not the rule. Courts are often cautious about adding back funds spent during the marriage, as it can be difficult to prove they were wasted with a deliberate intention to reduce the asset pool. Here, the Judge decided it was more just and equitable to treat the husband’s financial conduct as a relevant factor under Section 75(2)(o) of the Act. This allowed for a discretionary adjustment in the wife’s favour without getting bogged down in a complex and uncertain accounting exercise.

2. Why was the husband’s recusal application dismissed?

The bar for a judge to recuse themselves for apprehended bias is very high. The test is whether a “fair-minded lay observer” might reasonably think the judge might not be impartial. The husband’s counsel based his application on procedural disagreements, such as the Judge’s refusal to adjourn and comments made during a frustrating exchange. The Judge found there was no logical connection between these procedural rulings and an inability to decide the case impartially. A judge’s frustration with unmeritorious arguments or attempts to delay proceedings does not, by itself, constitute bias.

3. If there were no police reports for most of the marriage, how could the Court find that family violence occurred?

Police reports are not the only form of evidence. In this case, the Court relied on a powerful combination of sources. The wife’s testimony was found to be highly credible. Crucially, it was corroborated by multiple family members who witnessed the abuse. Furthermore, the wife had made contemporaneous complaints to her doctor and psychologist over many years, as documented in their clinical notes. This created a long-term record of her distress and its causes, which the Court found to be compelling evidence that the abuse was real and enduring, not a recent fabrication.

[Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines]

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

• Case Subtype: Matrimonial Property Settlement involving a long marriage, disputed financial contributions, and a Kennon claim for family violence.
• Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)

Core Test (Existence of De Facto Relationship – Section 4AA)

• Duration of the relationship: The general threshold is a total period of at least 2 years. This requirement may be waived if there is a child of the relationship, if one partner has made substantial contributions and it would be unjust not to make an order, or if the relationship was registered under a prescribed state or territory law.
• Nature and extent of common residence: This assesses whether the parties lived together and for how long. The Court looks at the substance of the living arrangement, not just the name on a lease.
• Whether a sexual relationship exists: While a factor, the absence of a sexual relationship does not automatically mean a de facto relationship does not exist, especially in long-term arrangements.
• Degree of financial dependence or interdependence: This examines joint bank accounts, shared expenses, mutual financial support, and whether one party was financially reliant on the other.
• Ownership, use and acquisition of property: The Court looks at whether property was acquired in joint names or separately, and how it was used (e.g., as a shared home).
• Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: This is a key indicator, assessing whether the parties presented and conducted themselves as a committed couple with a future together.
• The care and support of children: Whether the parties jointly cared for and supported children of the relationship is a significant factor.
• Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: This considers how the relationship was perceived by family, friends, and the public. Did they present as a couple?

Property Settlement – The Four-Step Process

1. Identification and Valuation: The first step is to create a comprehensive list of all assets and liabilities of the parties, regardless of whose name they are in. This includes real estate, bank accounts, vehicles, superannuation, shares, and business interests, as well as mortgages, loans, and credit card debts. The net value of this “asset pool” is then determined as at the date of the hearing.
2. Assessment of Contributions: The Court assesses the contributions made by each party throughout the relationship. This is not just a mathematical exercise and includes:
   • Financial contributions: Initial assets brought into the relationship, wages, inheritances, gifts, and windfalls.
   • Non-financial contributions: Improvements to property (e.g., renovations), unpaid work in a family business.
   • Contributions to the welfare of the family: This is a crucial category, recognising the roles of homemaker and parent. These contributions are given significant weight and are not considered inferior to financial contributions. The Court may also consider whether family violence made a party’s contributions more arduous (the Kennon principle).
3. Adjustment for Future Needs (s 75(2) Factors): After assessing contributions as a percentage, the Court considers whether an adjustment is needed based on the future needs of the parties. Factors include:
   • Age and health of each party.
   • Income, property, and financial resources.
   • Earning capacity.
   • Whether a party has the care of a child of the relationship.
   • Commitments necessary to support themselves or a child.
   • The standard of living that is reasonable in the circumstances.
   • The duration of the marriage and its effect on earning capacity.
   • Any other fact or circumstance the Court considers relevant (a “catch-all” provision).
4. Just and Equitable: Finally, the Court steps back and looks at the practical effect of the proposed orders to ensure that the overall outcome is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case.

Parenting Matters (Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975)

1. Primary Considerations: The Court’s paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. There are two primary considerations that must be weighed:
   • The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.
   • The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence. The Act explicitly states that the need to protect the child from harm is to be given greater weight.
2. Additional Considerations: The Court must also turn its mind to a list of other factors, including:
   • Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views.
   • The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the parents and other significant persons (e.g., grandparents).
   • The extent to which each parent has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues, spend time with the child, and communicate with the child.
   • The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent.
   • The capacity of each parent to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs.
   • The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the child and of either of the child’s parents.
   • The presence of any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family.
   • Any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

If dealing with [Civil / Commercial / Property / Family / Estate] matters:

• Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel:
  • Test: Did one party make a clear promise (e.g., “you will have a share in this house if you stay and care for me”)? Did the other party rely on that promise to their detriment (e.g., giving up a career, spending their own money on renovations)? Would it be unconscionable (grossly unfair) for the first party to go back on their word?
  • Result Reference: Even without a formal agreement, Equity can prevent a party from denying a promise where it would be unjust to do so, potentially creating an interest in a property for the relying party. This is particularly relevant in family or de facto disputes where formal agreements are rare.
• Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
  • Test: Has one party been enriched at the expense of the other? Is there a reason in justice why that enrichment should be returned? For example, if one partner paid for the construction of a house on land owned solely by the other, it would be unjust for the land-owning partner to keep the benefit of the house without compensating the other.
  • Result Reference: The Court can impose a constructive trust, declaring that the legal owner holds a portion of the property on trust for the other party, effectively giving them a beneficial interest that reflects their contribution.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

• Matrimonial Property: You must be legally married.
• De Facto Property (Federal): You must have been in a de facto relationship for at least two years, unless an exception applies.
• Time Limits: For married couples, you must apply within 12 months of your divorce becoming final. For de facto couples, you must apply within 2 years of the date of separation.

Exceptional Channels (Crucial)

• Family Law (De Facto < 2 years): The two-year rule can be waived if:
  • There is a child of the relationship.
  • The applicant made substantial contributions (financial or non-financial) and a failure to make an order would result in serious injustice.
  • The relationship was registered under a prescribed state or territory law.
• Family Law (Time Limits Expired): You can seek leave from the Court to file an application out of time. You will need to show that you would suffer hardship if leave were not granted and provide an adequate explanation for the delay.
• Suggestion: Do not assume your claim is barred simply because you do not meet the standard time limits. The exceptions for hardship or the presence of children are critical gateways. Always seek legal advice to see if your circumstances fit within a recognized exception.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

• It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:
  • The assessment of competing contributions in a long marriage where initial assets were negligible.
  • The application of the Kennon principle, particularly where family violence is non-physical but consists of a long-term pattern of coercive control and emotional abuse.
  • The Court’s use of Section 75(2)(o) as a flexible alternative to notional add-backs for financial misconduct or depletion of assets.
  • The evidentiary weight given to contemporaneous medical records and consistent witness testimony in family violence claims.

Citation Method

• As Positive Support: When your matter involves a long-term pattern of controlling behaviour that has demonstrably impacted your client’s well-being and ability to contribute, citing this authority can strengthen the argument that such conduct should result in a percentage adjustment in their favour.
• As a Distinguishing Reference: If an opposing party attempts to argue that a lack of police reports undermines a claim of family violence, you can cite this case to emphasize that the Court is entitled to make such findings based on credible testimony and other forms of corroborating evidence, such as medical records.
• Anonymisation Rule: When citing, do not use the real names of the parties. Refer to them strictly as “the husband” and “the wife” or “the Applicant” and “the Respondent.”

Conclusion

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Aikema & Aikema), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.