· 2026-02-24T22:41:53+0000 · 869 posts

Belligerence Has a Price: 73/27 Split After Post-Separation Violence, Non-Disclosure, and Wastage

In Gronow & Gronow [2026] FedCFamC2F 107 (Beckhouse J, 9 February 2026), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) made final s 79 property orders following a 16-year marriage with four children. The decision is a sharp illustration of how post-separation family violence, failure of full and frank disclosure, and asset wastage / non-compliance can materially shift outcomes—here culminating in a 73%/27% overall division (including superannuation) in the wife’s favour, plus a companion animal order.

🧩 Facts and Issues

Facts: The parties separated on 24 July 2023 after a long relationship (cohabitation from 2007; marriage in 2010). The wife (43) worked part-time as an educator and became the primary carer of four children with significant needs, while also keeping mortgages and outgoings afloat. Post-separation, the Court found the husband engaged in family violence toward the wife (supported by police material / Magistrates’ Court orders), and also found he failed in disclosure obligations and repeatedly breached financial restraints—conduct the Court treated as increasing the wife’s burden and diminishing the pool.

Key issues identified by the Court:

How to assess contributions, including the relevance of family violence (especially post-separation).
Whether and to what extent to adjust for current and future circumstances (including the effects of non-disclosure and wastage).

⚖️ Applicable Law – Legislation, Regulations, Rules

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79 (alteration of property interests; “just and equitable” discretion; contributions and future needs considerations).
Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) Sch 1 s 68 (amendments to Pt VIII commenced 10 June 2025, applied to this proceeding).
FCFCOA (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 8.15(3)(e), 10.26 (trial process/evidence compliance issues noted in the conduct of the hearing).

📌 Precedents Relied On

Dickons & Dickons (2012) 50 Fam LR 244 (holistic, discretionary contributions assessment; not an accounting exercise).
Martell & Martell (2023) 66 Fam LR 650 (threshold for recognising family violence is whether it has a discernible effect on contributions).

🧠 Analysis

Issue

What property division was just and equitable where:

the wife alleged (and the Court accepted) post-separation family violence increased the burden of her contributions,
the husband failed to provide full and frank disclosure,
and the husband’s conduct caused wastage / diminution of the available pool?

Rule

Under the post-amendment Pt VIII framework (as applicable), the Court:

identifies the parties’ property, liabilities, and super,
assesses contributions holistically (including the effect of family violence where it has a discernible impact), and
considers current and future circumstances—then stands back to confirm the result is just and equitable.

Application

1) The pool (modest, but complex)

The Court adopted a balance sheet producing:

Total net asset pool (excluding super): $1,747,266
Total net pool including super: $1,943,143

Key valuation/approach points included rejecting unsupported husband valuations and dealing robustly with missing disclosure (eg, adopting wife’s property values where husband had not properly raised disputes or provided evidence).

2) Contributions (wife up by 8% → 58/42)

The Court accepted there was broad equality during the marriage, save for the wife’s greater initial contribution (notably equity brought in).

But post-separation the wife’s contributions were found to be “significant” while the husband’s were “minimal”, including:

wife maintaining mortgages/outgoings (husband contributing only about $9,500),
wife funding repairs/insurance reinstatement,
wife providing the children’s day-to-day and therapeutic care,
husband’s periods of imprisonment and lack of child support, and
husband’s unilateral withdrawals from the rental/rent account despite orders.

The Court found post-separation family violence made the wife’s contributions significantly more onerous, meeting the Martell threshold for recognition, but also considered the limited proportion of post-separation time relative to the entire relationship—so the uplift was described as “modest” in context. The net result was an 8% contributions tilt, expressed as 58% (wife) / 42% (husband).

3) Current and future needs (big adjustment: +15%)

The wife’s future-needs case was powerful and evidence-based:

she worked part-time earning about $48,000,
her mental health was described as vulnerable due to the violence,
three children had ASD/ADHD and related conditions requiring ongoing interventions funded by the wife,
she had a domestic violence exemption regarding child support and received no practical support, and
the husband’s tax non-compliance caused knock-on impacts including loss of childcare subsidy and a Centrelink overpayment debt ($6,364.81).

The Court also accepted the wife carried a litigation funding liability (JustFund loan $69,462 outstanding).

These factors supported a 15% future-needs adjustment (the Court noted this equated to $291,471 in dollar terms).

4) Non-disclosure and wastage (conduct matters)

The Court found:

ongoing non-disclosure (bank statements, tax returns, business financials, Motor Vehicle 4 payout; late “dropbox link” at trial), and
wastage/diminution through non-compliance and unilateral withdrawals, including failure to fully repay amounts ordered back into an offset account and further withdrawals from the 1 F Street account up to trial.

Conclusion

Combining (a) 58/42 contributions and (b) a 15% needs adjustment, the Court made orders producing an overall 73%/27% division of assets, liabilities and superannuation:

Wife: $1,418,494
Husband: $524,648

Structurally, the Court prioritised keeping the wife housed with the children at 2 F Street, and ordered the sale of 1 F Street (with the wife as trustee) given the husband’s lack of evidence he could refinance/retain it.

🧠 Take-Home Lesson

If post-separation violence and intimidation materially increase the other party’s burden, and that is compounded by non-disclosure, breaches of financial restraints, and conduct that shrinks the pool, the Court can move well beyond “near equality” and make a major percentage shift—here to 73/27, even in a “modest property” case.