Family Law Property Dispute: How Does Family Violence and Financial Non-Disclosure Impact the Final Division of Assets?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Riley & Riley [2025] FedCFamC2F 1020, 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 2)
• Presiding Judge: Judge Turnbull
• Cause of Action: Property Settlement pursuant to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
• Judgment Date: 28 July 2025
• Core Keywords: Authentic Judgment Case, Family Law, Property Settlement, Family Violence, Kennon Claim, Financial Non-Disclosure

Background

This case concerns a property settlement dispute following the breakdown of a long-term marriage of approximately 20 years. The parties, Ms Riley (the Applicant Wife) and Mr Riley (the Respondent Husband), had built a life together, raising two children and accumulating a modest asset pool primarily through the Husband’s work as a self-employed builder and the Wife’s contributions as a homemaker, parent, and part-time allied health worker. While the value of the asset pool was largely agreed upon, the proceedings were complicated by serious allegations of family violence made by the Wife and a significant lack of financial transparency on the part of the Husband, whose true income-earning capacity became a central issue.

Core Disputes and Claims

The fundamental disagreement revolved around how the parties’ respective contributions should be assessed and whether any adjustments should be made for future needs.

• The Applicant Wife’s Claim: The Wife sought a significant adjustment in her favour, ultimately arguing for a 55% share based on her contributions, plus an additional 15% adjustment for future needs. Her case was founded on two key pillars: firstly, that her contributions as a homemaker and parent were made significantly more arduous due to a long course of family violence perpetrated by the Husband (a principle known as a Kennon claim); and secondly, that a substantial disparity existed in their future earning capacities.

• The Respondent Husband’s Claim: The Husband initially sought a 55/45 division in his favour, citing significant post-separation asset acquisitions. However, he later revised his position, arguing for an equal 50/50 division of the net asset pool. He admitted to one instance of assault but denied any ongoing pattern of violence and maintained that his income was modest, consistent with his tax returns.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The parties commenced cohabitation in 1996 and married in 1997, marking the beginning of a two-decade partnership. At the outset, neither party brought substantial assets into the relationship. The Husband had some savings, a car, and a motorbike, while the Wife owned a car. Their first major joint venture was the purchase of a property in Town J, Tasmania, in 1997, funded in part by the Husband’s initial savings. Both contributed to its renovation, with the Husband performing the majority of the building work and the Wife assisting with tasks like plastering and painting.

During the marriage, they had two children, Ms G, born in 1998, and Mr E, born in 1999. The Wife assumed the primary role of homemaker and caregiver, a responsibility that intensified as Mr E presented with behavioural challenges from a young age. Concurrently, the parties operated a business partnership, for which the Wife served as the bookkeeper while also undertaking study to qualify as an allied health worker.

In 2012, they purchased a block of land at B Street, Town C, which was subsequently subdivided into two lots. In 2014, they sold the Town J property, using the proceeds to help fund the construction of a new family home on one of the B Street lots, a project undertaken solely by the Husband.

The relationship was, however, marked by conflict. The Wife alleged a long-standing pattern of emotional and physical abuse. This culminated in a significant incident in 2015, where the Husband assaulted the Wife, leading to police involvement, a Police Family Violence Order, and a guilty plea to common assault by the Husband. The parties finally separated in December 2016, though they are yet to divorce. The breakdown of the marriage and the unresolved financial ties, compounded by the serious allegations of violence and financial disparity, ultimately led the Wife to initiate these property proceedings on 3 November 2023.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

• Affidavit Evidence: The Wife’s primary evidence consisted of her detailed affidavit, which chronicled a 20-year history of alleged physical, verbal, and emotional abuse. She recounted specific incidents, including the Husband smashing property, grabbing her by the throat, and the 2015 assault that led to his conviction. She argued these experiences made her homemaker and parent contributions significantly more arduous.
• Witness Testimony: Her case was strongly supported by the testimony of her daughter, Ms G, who corroborated accounts of violence against both her mother and her brother, Mr E. The unchallenged affidavit of the Wife’s psychologist, Dr P, confirmed that the Wife presented with symptoms of anxiety and trauma consistent with her experiences, impacting her ability to work full-time.
• Financial Evidence: The Wife raised significant questions about the Husband’s financial disclosure. Through subpoenas, she produced insurance documents where the Husband had declared a business turnover of $670,000, and building contracts he had signed for another company, N Pty Ltd, despite claiming no financial interest. This evidence directly contradicted his claims of a modest income.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

• Affidavit Evidence: The Husband’s affidavits conceded the 2015 assault but vehemently denied any other instances of physical violence, framing the marriage as one with mutual arguments where the Wife was often sarcastic and verbally aggressive.
• Financial Evidence: He presented his tax returns, which showed a consistent taxable income of around $42,000 per year. He argued that his significant post-separation acquisition of three motor vehicles should be recognised as a substantial contribution in his favour. He explained his ability to lend $25,000 to a friend and his involvement in large construction projects (for which he claimed no financial benefit) as acts of generosity towards family and friends.
• Witness Evidence: He relied on the evidence of his friend, Mr R, to confirm the loan arrangement. However, he notably failed to call his business associate, Mr O, or his nephews to corroborate his claims about the building projects undertaken using his licence, leaving his explanations unsubstantiated.

Core Dispute Points:

1. Credibility and Family Violence: The central factual dispute was the extent and impact of family violence. The Court had to decide between the Wife’s account of a prolonged course of conduct and the Husband’s portrayal of a single, isolated incident.
2. The Kennon Claim: The key legal question was whether the violence established by the evidence made the Wife’s contributions “significantly more arduous,” warranting an adjustment in the division of property in her favour.
3. Financial Disclosure and Earning Capacity: A critical issue was whether the Husband had been frank about his true income and financial resources. The Court had to determine if his declared income reflected his actual earning capacity, particularly in light of the undisclosed business dealings.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

The affidavits of the parties presented two starkly different narratives of the marriage. The Wife’s statement painted a picture of a long and difficult relationship where she lived in constant fear, or “fight or flight mode,” which took a significant toll on her mental health and self-worth. She detailed how this environment made the already demanding tasks of raising two children (one with behavioural issues) and managing a household significantly more difficult. Her narrative sought to establish a direct causal link between the Husband’s conduct and the arduous nature of her contributions.

Conversely, the Husband’s affidavit sought to normalise the relationship’s conflicts and isolate the admitted 2015 assault as an anomaly. He described himself as the “placid one” who would retreat to his shed to avoid the Wife’s “moody or angry” behaviour. His financial narrative was one of a modest, hardworking tradesman whose income had remained consistently low, both during and after the marriage. This portrayal was crucial to his argument that his post-separation acquisition of assets was a significant personal contribution and that there was no great disparity in their future financial positions. The stark contrast between these sworn statements set the stage for a forensic examination of credibility at trial.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final judgment, the trial was notably adjourned. This adjournment was a direct consequence of the Husband’s evidence under cross-examination, where his undisclosed involvement in significant building projects with another company, N Pty Ltd, came to light. Concerned about potential breaches of the Occupational Licensing Act 2005 (Tas) and the Husband’s lack of full and frank financial disclosure, the Court took the serious step of referring the matter to the relevant state licensing authority for investigation. This procedural direction underscored the gravity with which the Court viewed the Husband’s failure to be forthright and delayed the resolution of the matter until further inquiries could be made.

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

The hearing brought the conflicting narratives into sharp focus. Under cross-examination, the Wife remained a compelling and consistent witness. She did not retract her allegations and gave a clear account of the impact the Husband’s behaviour had on her and the family. Her credibility was bolstered by the evidence of her daughter, Ms G, who, despite her love for both parents, corroborated key incidents of violence.

The Husband’s time in the witness box proved far more damaging to his case. His credibility crumbled under questioning about his financial affairs. He was confronted with insurance documents and building contracts he had signed that were completely at odds with his declared income and his claims of having no financial interest in the projects. His explanations—that he was simply “helping out” his nephews and a business associate by lending them his building licence for major construction projects without any financial benefit to himself—were viewed by the Court as implausible.

His failure to call his business associate, Mr O, or his nephews to corroborate his story was a critical omission. The Court applied the well-established principle from Jones v Dunkel, drawing an adverse inference that their evidence would not have assisted his case. The Judge noted the “drip-feed” of information from the Husband, which created a strong impression that he had deliberately sought to conceal his true financial position from both the Wife and the Court.

In assessing the evidence on family violence, the Judge delivered a powerful analysis, accepting the Wife’s account. He observed:

I am persuaded, to the requisite standard, that the Wife and Mr E suffered from family violence perpetrated by the Husband over the prolonged period alleged by the Wife.

This finding was pivotal. The Judge accepted the core consistency of the Wife’s and daughter’s evidence, supported by the Husband’s own conviction and his threat to his pregnant daughter during the 2015 assault. The Husband’s denials were found to lack credibility, particularly in light of his broader failure to be a frank and honest witness regarding his finances. The Court concluded that the Husband was unable, at times, to control his violent emotions when angered, and this reality permeated the entire relationship.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

Having weighed all the evidence and submissions, the Court made the following orders:

1. All extant property orders are discharged.
2. The former matrimonial home at 1 B Street, Town C, Tasmania, is to be sold.
3. From the proceeds of sale, all costs of the sale, outstanding rates, the joint mortgage to D Bank, and the loan for Motor Vehicle 1 are to be paid out.
4. The remaining net property of the parties, including the net proceeds from the sale of the real estate and the parties’ superannuation interests, is to be divided in the proportion of 55.5% to the Applicant Wife and 44.5% to the Respondent Husband.
5. To give effect to the superannuation equalisation agreed by the parties, a splitting order is made for $17,000 to be transferred from the Husband’s interest in Super Fund 1 to a fund nominated by the Wife.
6. Each party is to be solely entitled to all other assets and solely liable for all other debts in their respective names or possession.
7. All other applications are dismissed.

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

Special Analysis

The jurisprudential value of this case lies in its clear, modern application of established family law principles in the face of two common but challenging issues: family violence and financial non-disclosure. It serves as a powerful reminder that the Court will adopt a “robust” approach when a party’s lack of candour undermines the judicial process. The judgment masterfully demonstrates how a finding of family violence is not merely a historical footnote but a live factor that directly impacts the assessment of contributions, tipping the scales in what might otherwise have been a near-equal division. Furthermore, it reinforces the principle that inferences drawn from a party’s failure to call key witnesses (Jones v Dunkel) are not a procedural triviality but can be fatal to their credibility and, ultimately, their case.

Judgment Points

• A Kennon claim can succeed even if the victim “performed well” in their role; the focus is not on whether the contributions were made, but whether they were made “more arduous” by the perpetrator’s conduct.
• The court can, and will, infer an adverse impact on contributions from credible lay evidence of violence and its effects (such as seeking psychological treatment), without requiring explicit medical evidence that quantifies the impact in percentage terms.
• A party’s financial capacity is assessed not just on declared income but on their demonstrated access to funds. The ability to lend substantial sums of money or acquire significant assets while claiming a low income is a major red flag that will be scrutinised.
• The obligation of full and frank financial disclosure is absolute. A “drip-feed” of information or attempting to conceal involvement in business dealings will severely damage a party’s credibility and may lead the court to make findings more favourable to the other party.

Legal Basis

The Court’s decision was fundamentally grounded in Part VIII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Judge methodically applied the well-established four-step process for property settlement, which involves:
1. Identifying and valuing the net asset pool.
2. Assessing the parties’ contributions under s 79(4), including financial, non-financial, and homemaker/parent contributions.
3. Considering the future needs factors under s 75(2).
4. Ensuring the final order is “just and equitable” in all the circumstances.

A key provision in this case was s 4AB of the Act, which defines family violence. The Judge’s findings of fact were made according to the civil standard of proof—the balance of probabilities—as required by s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

Evidence Chain

The Wife’s victory was built upon a powerful and cohesive chain of evidence. The foundation was her own detailed and credible testimony, which remained unshaken during cross-examination. This was directly corroborated by the affidavit and testimony of her daughter, Ms G, who provided a compelling eyewitness account of the Husband’s violence. This lay evidence was then professionally validated by the affidavit of the psychologist, Dr P, who linked the Wife’s psychological state to her experiences of trauma. Finally, objective documentary evidence—the police record of the 2015 assault and the Husband’s guilty plea—solidified the finding of family violence. This chain allowed the Court to confidently accept that the Wife’s contributions were made significantly more arduous, justifying an adjustment under the Kennon principle.

Judicial Original Quotation

In addressing the Husband’s non-disclosure and the failure to call crucial witnesses, the Judge’s reasoning reflects the principles established in leading authorities. The High Court’s decision in Jones v Dunkel was pivotal, and its application was clearly articulated by the Full Court in Coshott & Prentice, which the Judge referenced in his decision-making process:

Thus, where the evidence relied upon by a party bearing the onus of proof does not itself clearly discharge the onus, the failure by that party to call or give evidence that could cast light on a matter in dispute is relevant to determining whether the onus is being discharged… This principle is therefore wider than that in Jones v Dunkel. As Austin J in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich explained… ‘[w]hereas Jones v Dunkel reinforces an inference drawn against the party who has not called evidence, to the effect that the evidence would not have assisted that party’s case, Blatch v Archer leads either to the drawing of such an inference, or to some other assessment of the weight of evidence, unfavourable to the party against whom the principle is applied.’

This passage demonstrates the Court’s rationale: the Husband had the power to produce evidence from his nephews and business associate to explain his financial dealings. His unexplained failure to do so allowed the Court to not only infer that their evidence would not have helped him, but also to weigh the existing evidence more heavily against him, leading to the conclusion that his income and resources were greater than he had disclosed.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Husband’s case failed primarily due to a catastrophic loss of credibility. His strategy of downplaying his violent conduct was untenable in the face of his own criminal plea, the corroborating evidence of his daughter, and the consistent account of the Wife. By attempting to deny the undeniable, he undermined his credibility on all other matters.

His second major failure was the lack of full and frank financial disclosure. The drip-feed of information regarding his business dealings and his implausible explanation that he was deriving no financial benefit from projects with a turnover of hundreds of thousands of dollars were fatal. This conduct breached his fundamental obligation to the Court and led the Judge to infer that his true financial position was far stronger than he admitted. This inference directly supported the Wife’s claim for a future needs adjustment based on a disparity in earning capacity.

Implications

1. Violence is a Financial Issue: This case powerfully illustrates that family violence is not just a personal or criminal matter; it has direct and quantifiable financial consequences in property settlements by making one party’s contributions more arduous.
2. Credibility is Everything: Your honesty and transparency with the Court are paramount. Attempting to conceal assets, understate income, or downplay past conduct will likely destroy your credibility and lead the Court to draw adverse inferences against you.
3. The Homemaker Contribution is Substantial: The law recognizes that the role of a homemaker and parent is a significant contribution that enables the other party to focus on income generation. This contribution is not tokenistic and will be given substantial weight.
4. Evidence Must Be Corroborated where Possible: While a victim’s testimony of family violence does not require corroboration to be accepted, the Wife’s case was significantly strengthened by the supporting evidence of her daughter, her psychologist, and police records.
5. You Cannot Hide Behind Business Structures: The Court will look beyond complex business structures or arrangements to determine the true financial reality. Claiming you are “just helping out” while your name and licence are attached to major projects will not withstand scrutiny.

Q&A Session

1. Why did the Wife receive a 55.5% share in a long marriage that would often be split 50/50?
The 50/50 starting point was adjusted for two main reasons. First, the Court made a 2.5% adjustment in the Wife’s favour after assessing the parties’ contributions, finding hers were made “more arduous” due to the Husband’s family violence (the Kennon principle). Second, the Court made a further 3% adjustment for “future needs” under s 75(2), recognizing the significant disparity between the Husband’s actual and potential earning capacity as a builder and the Wife’s more modest income prospects.

2. The Husband only had one conviction for assault. How did the Court find a “prolonged period” of violence?
In family law, the standard of proof is the “balance of probabilities” (is it more likely than not?), not the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Court found the detailed and consistent evidence of both the Wife and her daughter to be highly credible. This testimony, combined with the Husband’s own admission to one assault and the evidence from the Wife’s psychologist, was sufficient to persuade the Judge that a pattern of coercive and violent behaviour existed over many years.

3. What was the biggest mistake the Husband made?
His biggest mistake was his failure to be full and frank in his financial disclosure. By not revealing his involvement in significant building projects from the outset, he created the impression that he was actively concealing income. This destroyed his credibility. When a judge cannot trust a party’s financial evidence, they are entitled to draw adverse inferences and may prefer the other party’s evidence, even if it is less precise. This non-disclosure directly led to the finding that he had a greater earning capacity, which justified the final financial adjustment in the Wife’s favour.

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

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

• Case Subtype: Family Law – Property Settlement
• Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

① Property Settlement – The Four-Step Process:

The judgment in Riley & Riley is a classic application of the four-step process used to determine property settlement matters under the Family Law Act 1975. Anyone facing a similar situation should understand how a court will methodically approach their case:

• Step 1: Identification and Valuation of the Net Asset Pool: This is the foundational step. The Court must identify all property, superannuation, and financial resources owned by the parties, whether held jointly or individually. All liabilities (mortgages, loans, credit cards) are also identified. The net value is the total assets minus total liabilities. Full and frank financial disclosure from both parties is a legal requirement and is critical to this step. As seen in this case, failure to disclose can have severe consequences for a party’s credibility.

• Step 2: Assessment of Contributions (s 79(4)): The Court assesses the contributions made by each party throughout the relationship. This is a holistic assessment and is not purely a mathematical exercise. The key categories are:

  • Financial Contributions: Includes initial contributions (assets brought into the relationship), as well as income earned, inheritances, or gifts received during the relationship.
  • Non-Financial Contributions: Includes improvements to property through personal effort, such as renovations or building work. The Husband’s work in building the family homes was a significant non-financial contribution.
  • Contributions to the Welfare of the Family (Homemaker/Parent): This recognizes the vital role of the party who was primarily responsible for childcare and managing the household, thereby freeing the other party to focus on income-earning activities. The Court considers this a substantial contribution, not a token one.
  • The Kennon Adjustment: As demonstrated in this case, where a course of family violence has made one party’s contributions significantly more arduous, the Court can make an adjustment to reflect this, effectively giving greater weight to those contributions.
• Step 3: Adjustment for Future Needs (s 75(2) Factors): After assessing contributions, the Court considers whether a further adjustment is needed based on the future circumstances of the parties. Key factors include:
  • Age and state of health.
  • Income, property, and financial resources of each party.
  • Physical and mental capacity for gainful employment.
  • Whether a party has the care of a child of the relationship.
  • The duration of the marriage and its effect on a party’s earning capacity.
  • The financial circumstances of any new de facto relationship.
• Step 4: The Just and Equitable Requirement: Finally, the Court must “stand back” and look at the practical effect of the proposed orders. It considers the percentage division in the context of the actual assets each party will receive to ensure the final outcome is fair and equitable in all the circumstances of the case.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

In family law property matters, the Family Law Act 1975 provides the Court with very broad powers to adjust the legal and equitable interests of the parties, so separate claims in equity are less common than in general commercial disputes. However, the principles of equity often inform the Court’s decision-making, particularly when one party’s conduct is unconscionable.

• Constructive Trust / Unjust Enrichment: While not explicitly pleaded as a separate claim, the underlying principle is relevant. If one party has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the other (for example, by hiding assets generated through joint efforts), the Court’s power under s 79 is broad enough to remedy this by altering property interests to achieve a just result. The Husband’s failure to disclose his business dealings could be framed as an attempt to unjustly enrich himself by excluding potential assets from the pool, which the Court counteracted through its final orders.

• Promissory Estoppel: This could arise if, for example, one party promised the other a certain share of an asset and the other party acted on that promise to their detriment. In this case, the statutory framework of the Act was the primary vehicle for determining the division, but in cases with specific promises, estoppel principles can be a relevant consideration for the Court in determining what is “just and equitable.”

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

While not an issue in this case as proceedings were commenced in a timely manner, it is crucial for anyone contemplating a property settlement to be aware of the strict time limits.

• Regular Thresholds:
  • For Married Couples: An application for property orders must be filed within 12 months of a divorce order taking effect.
  • For De Facto Couples: An application must be filed within 2 years of the date of separation.
• Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
  • Seeking Leave Out of Time: If you have missed the deadline, it is not an absolute bar to proceedings. You can apply to the Court for “leave” (permission) to file out of time. To succeed, you must generally demonstrate two things:
    1. That you would suffer hardship if leave were not granted (e.g., you would be left without a fair share of the property and unable to support yourself).
    2. That you have a reasonable “prima facie” case, meaning your claim has a real chance of success if it were allowed to proceed.
  • Suggestion: Do not assume your rights are extinguished just because a time limit has passed. The concept of “hardship” can be broad, and if significant assets are involved, it is always worth seeking legal advice about the possibility of making an out-of-time application.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

• Citation Angle: This judgment is a valuable authority in cases involving:
  1. The application of the Kennon principle, particularly where the impact of family violence needs to be inferred from a collection of evidence rather than a single, quantifiable medical report.
  2. Situations where a party has failed to make full and frank financial disclosure, justifying the drawing of a Jones v Dunkel adverse inference.
  3. Disputes over the true income-earning capacity of a self-employed party whose declared income appears inconsistent with their lifestyle or financial activities.
• Citation Method:
  • As Positive Support: When arguing for a contributions-based adjustment due to family violence, cite this case to demonstrate that a “course of conduct” can be established through credible lay testimony and that its impact can be inferred. When challenging an opponent’s financial disclosure, cite this case to support drawing an adverse inference from their failure to call key witnesses who could clarify financial ambiguities.
  • As a Distinguishing Reference: An opposing party might try to argue that a Kennon claim requires exceptional violence or a complete breakdown of a party’s ability to contribute. You could distinguish their argument by citing Martell & Martell (as referenced in this judgment) to show that the focus is on whether contributions were made “more arduous,” not whether they ceased entirely.
• Anonymisation Rule: When citing this case, strictly use the professional procedural titles: The Applicant/Wife and The Respondent/Husband.

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 (Riley & Riley), 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.