Economic abuse is increasingly recognised in Australian legislation as a powerful and insidious form of domestic and family violence. Under Queensland’s Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (‘DFVP Act’), economic abuse is defined and treated seriously by the courts. Whether you’re seeking protection, legal clarity, or recovery after abuse, understanding this issue is the first step.
What is Economic Abuse?
The DFVP Act contains a list of acts and behaviours which are defined as domestic violence. The courts use these definitions to assess if a person has committed an act of domestic violence. Within the meaning of domestic violence, the DFVP Act notes an act which is ‘economically abusive’ is an act of domestic violence.
Section 12 of the DFPV Act goes into detail of what is economic abuse. It can be a series of acts/behaviour or one isolated act.
The act/s must be done by one person (respondent) to another person (aggrieved) that is either coercive, deceptive or unreasonably controls the aggrieved without the aggrieved’s consent that either:
(a) in a way that denies the aggrieved the economic or financial autonomy the aggrieved would have had but for that behaviour; or
(b) by withholding or threatening to withhold the financial support necessary for meeting the reasonable living expenses of the aggrieved or a child, if the aggrieved or the child is entirely or predominantly dependent on the respondent for financial support to meet those living expenses.
Examples of economic abuse include:
- Preventing someone from working or studying;
- Controlling all household finances;
- Denying access to bank accounts;
- Forcing debt in the victim’s name; or
- Removal of assets of like a house.
Importantly, economic abuse does not need to involve physical violence, sometimes it is not obvious and can be subtle.
There are a wide range of acts which the court may find to be economic abuse as each case is assessed on its own circumstances and the courts purposely give a wide meaning to these definitions.
As such, we always advise clients when leaving a relationship, to be very cautious bout taking money from shared accounts, cancelling bill repayments and not keeping up to date with child support payments. Parties should be advised and agree to changes before they are made.
Signs of Economic Abuse in Relationships
Economic abuse in relationship often hides behind traditional financial roles, making it hard to detect until significant harm has occurred. It may start subtly, such as a partner managing all the bills “for convenience,” but evolve into complete financial dependency and control.
Signs include:
- Being required to account for every dollar spent;
- Denied knowledge of shared assets or income;
- Being coerced to give money to the other person;
- Refusing to pay for essential items as away of controlling the other person;
- Being given an allowance for essential items; or
- Accumulating debts you didn’t agree to or know about.
Partners may feel trapped due to a lack of resources or fear of financial ruin. Recognising these signs early is critical in taking protective legal steps before a person’s power is eroded.
Economic Abuse vs Financial Abuse:
What’s the Difference Under Australian
Law?
While often used interchangeably, economic abuse and financial abuse carry distinct meanings in legal contexts.
- Financial abuse often refers to misuse of another person’s financial
resources (e.g., elder abuse, fraud). - Economic abuse is broader. It includes controlling someone’s ability to earn or use money, even when no assets have yet been taken.
Australian law, particularly in Queensland, now recognises economic abuse as a specific category of domestic violence, expanding protections and available remedies.
Coercive Control & Economic Abuse: A Hidden Pattern of Power
There is a strong link between coercive control and economic abuse. Coercive control refers to ongoing patterns of behaviour used to dominate and intimidate a partner, without the use or threat of physical violence. Coercive control is more calculated and harder to detect.
Economic abuse is one of the most common tools used in coercive control. It reinforces dependency and removes autonomy.
This might include:
- Sabotaging employment;
- Monitoring spending with banking apps;
- Making financial threats to induce fear; and/or
- Limiting access and stating hardship.
In 2025, Queensland courts are increasingly recognising this hidden abuse pattern when issuing protection orders and during family law proceedings.
Economic Abuse & Divorce in Australia: What the Courts Will Consider in 2025
In a post-economic abuse divorce, Australian courts must now assess how abuse impacted a party’s ability to contribute financially or make informed financial decisions. The Family Law Act allows consideration of family violence, including economic abuse in property settlements.
The courts may examine:
- Who controlled the finances during the relationship;
- Whether the victim’s career was limited or earnings restricted; and
- Financial hardship caused by coercive control.
In 2025, it is expected that economic abuse claims will play a larger role in adjusting property entitlements to ensure fairness and justice in separation outcomes.
Rebuilding Financial Independence After Economic Abuse
Regaining control after economic abuse takes both emotional resilience and legal support.
Key legal considerations include:
- Obtaining correct information about the state of financial affairs (this can
be done during property proceedings via Disclosure which is ordered by
the courts); - Opening new bank accounts in one person’s name only with restrictions;
- Ensuring wages and income go into this new bank account;
- Applying for spousal maintenance where needed;
- Accessing superannuation splitting;
- Negotiating fair property settlements (independent legal advice is strongly
recommended); and - Enforcing child support rights which can be collected via third parties.
Legal guidance can ensure that your financial recovery is supported by enforceable orders and long-term planning strategies.
Legal Considerations Before Entering a New Relationship
After surviving economic abuse, many people are understandably cautious about new relationships.
Legal safeguards can help:
- Binding Financial Agreements (BFAs) clarify financial arrangements and protect personal assets
- Asset protection strategies (e.g., trusts or separate ownership structures)
- Updating Wills and Enduring Power of Attorney to reflect new relationships and protect against future coercion
Taking proactive legal steps offers peace of mind and reduces the risk of repeated patterns of abuse.
Economic abuse: Interesting case (MNT v MEE [2020] QDC 126)
A Magistrates Court decision from the Ipswich court in 2020 was appealed to the District Court after the Magistrates had found the act of forgiving a debt was an act of economic abuse. On appeal, Byrne QC DCJ held that in the circumstances the forgiveness of debt was not an act of economic abuse, however the overall behaviour of the respondent was domestic violence.
Facts:
Two parties entered a de-facto relationship later in life. The respondent bought to the relationship, two properties which had tendency incomes. The aggrieved did not own property. The respondent’s son ended up living in one of houses and entered into a Deed Agreement stating he would live rent free in the house as a loan of $68,000.
Some years later, the respondent and aggrieved jointly bought land that had a
shed on it for the purpose of the respondent building them a house. The relationship broke down and it was found the respondent had committed several acts of domestic violence. Before a property settlement was heard in the Federal Court, the respondent forgave the debt owed to him by his son to allow his son to buy a house. This remove the debt owed to the respondent by his son from the ‘property pool’ to be split between the respondent and aggrieved.
Findings:
The District Court found there was insufficient evidence to show that the forgiveness off the debt denied the aggrieved economic or financial autonomy and the evidence should he had provided the aggrieved with financial support.
However, it was found that the overall behaviour of the respondent was domestic violence. Further, the fact that the debt was forgiven before property proceedings was a deliberate attempt to remove the debt owing from the asset pool.
Further, acts involving property law proceedings which are another court jurisdiction can be consider in domestic violence proceedings as the Magistrate must assess how parties have behaved overall, but not the amount parties are entitled to or the division of property.
Final Thoughts
At Elysian Law, we are dedicated to helping people acknowledge they have suffered economic abuse or to ensure they do not commit an act of economic abuse upon separation. This can be a very complex area to navigate alone. To avoid court proceedings, when possible, in the best interest of all parties when families break down.
Contact the Elysian Law team for a confidential free consultation.
Author: Nichale Bool
