Farina & Lofts & Ors

In *Farina & Lofts & Ors*, the applicant, Mr Farina, sought a preliminary ruling from the Family Court of Australia concerning the application of the *Kennon* principles to the property settlement between himself and the first respondent, Ms Lofts. The dispute centred on whether the evidence of family violence presented by Ms Lofts, taken at its highest, was sufficient to warrant an additional adjustment to her property interests under the *Kennon* principles. The applicant contended that the evidence did not meet the required threshold.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine if the evidence adduced by the first respondent regarding alleged family violence met the specific criteria established in *Kennon v Kennon* for an adjustment in property proceedings. This involved assessing whether the alleged conduct constituted family violence, whether it had a significant adverse impact on the first respondent's capacity to make contributions to the marriage, and whether this impact could be quantified. The court was asked to rule on this issue at a preliminary stage, separate from the involvement of the second to fifth respondents.

The court's reasoning focused on the application of the *Kennon* principles, which allow for adjustments in property settlements where a course of violent conduct by one party towards the other has had a significant adverse impact on that party's contributions or made their contributions significantly more arduous. While acknowledging that family violence can be a relevant factor, the court emphasised the need for adequate evidence to support any relevant finding and adjustment. The court found that while the first respondent's affidavit detailed a history of alleged family violence, the evidence failed to demonstrate a discernible or significant adverse impact on her capacity to make contributions, nor did it provide a basis for quantifying such an impact. The court accepted the applicant's submission that the evidence, including the first respondent's assertions of feeling fearful or anxious, fell short of establishing the necessary impact on her ability to contribute.

Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence relied upon by the first respondent was insufficient to establish the requirements of the *Kennon* principles. The court therefore found that no adjustment to the property settlement would be made on this basis.