THE GLASS THROUGH WHICH FAIRNESS IS ASSESSED™
GGS-003
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE SERIES™
THE GLASS THROUGH WHICH FAIRNESS IS ASSESSED™
Domestic Abuse, Financial Remedies and the Future of Conduct Under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Author
Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™
Governance Analyst | Systems Reform Specialist | Safeguarding Framework Developer
Version 1.0
COPYRIGHT
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453)
This publication forms part of the SAFECHAIN™ Global Governance Series™.
The concepts, methodologies, terminology, analytical models and governance frameworks contained within this publication, including but not limited to:
The Glass Through Which Fairness Is Assessed™
Financial Remedy Integrity™
Recognition Intelligence™
Participation Integrity™
Disclosure Integrity™
Financial Fairness Matrix™
Coercive Debt Assessment™
Vulnerability Intelligence™
constitute original intellectual property created by Samantha Avril-Andreassen.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, implemented, translated, incorporated into governance systems, software, educational programmes, artificial intelligence systems, institutional policies, commercial products, training materials or derivative works without prior written permission from the copyright holder, except for properly attributed quotations used for academic criticism, review or lawful research.
This publication is produced for research, academic, governance and policy discussion. It does not constitute legal advice.
ABSTRACT
Financial remedy proceedings have traditionally approached conduct through the narrow gateway established by section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Courts have consistently held that conduct should only influence financial outcomes where it would be inequitable to disregard it, creating what has become known as the "exceptionality" threshold.
Meanwhile, the legal understanding of domestic abuse has undergone profound transformation. Contemporary legislation now recognises coercive control, economic abuse, psychological abuse and post-separation abuse as complex behavioural patterns capable of producing long-term financial, psychological and social harm.
This paper examines whether the traditional conduct framework remains capable of reflecting these developments.
It argues that coercive control frequently produces financial consequences extending far beyond interpersonal behaviour. Economic abuse affects earning capacity, borrowing, housing security, pension accumulation, disclosure, litigation participation and long-term financial independence. These consequences often become central to financial remedy proceedings while the abusive behaviours that created them remain largely peripheral to financial assessment.
Rather than proposing a lower conduct threshold, this paper proposes a different analytical lens.
The central question should not simply be whether behaviour was sufficiently exceptional.
The more appropriate inquiry is whether the behaviour materially distorted financial fairness.
The paper develops the SAFECHAIN™ Financial Fairness Model as a governance framework integrating Recognition Intelligence™, Participation Integrity™, Disclosure Integrity™, Economic Abuse Assessment™ and Coercive Debt Assessment™ to support more comprehensive financial decision-making while remaining consistent with existing legal principles.
Keywords
Financial Remedies
Section 25 MCA 1973
Domestic Abuse
Coercive Control
Economic Abuse
Financial Fairness
Participation Integrity™
Recognition Intelligence™
Disclosure Integrity™
Coercive Debt
Governance
Family Justice
SAFECHAIN™
CONTENTS
Introduction
The Evolution of Conduct Under Section 25 MCA 1973
Domestic Abuse Is Financial
Economic Abuse and Coercive Debt
Hidden Financial Consequences of Abuse
Litigation Abuse and Financial Distortion
Participation Integrity™
Reinterpreting Financial Fairness
The SAFECHAIN™ Financial Fairness Model
Conclusions
INTRODUCTION
Family justice has undergone significant transformation over the past two decades.
The legal understanding of domestic abuse has expanded considerably beyond physical violence to include coercive control, economic abuse, emotional abuse, technological surveillance and post-separation abuse. Legislatures, appellate courts, domestic homicide reviews, inspectorates and safeguarding bodies increasingly recognise that abusive relationships frequently operate through patterns of domination rather than isolated incidents of physical harm.
Financial remedy proceedings have evolved more slowly.
Although family courts routinely consider disclosure, resources, housing needs, pensions and future financial security, the analytical framework governing conduct remains centred upon section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
The statutory wording has remained unchanged:
"the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it."
The judiciary has consistently interpreted this provision narrowly.
Conduct has traditionally been regarded as exceptional.
Not every instance of poor behaviour.
Not every allegation of domestic abuse.
Not every example of marital misconduct.
Only conduct meeting a particularly high threshold has generally been considered capable of altering financial outcomes.
This approach reflected an understandable concern.
Financial remedy proceedings should not become vehicles for relitigating every aspect of a failed relationship.
The objective has long been to achieve fairness rather than moral judgment.
However, the legal landscape surrounding domestic abuse has fundamentally changed.
Modern understandings of coercive control demonstrate that abuse frequently reshapes an individual's financial position long before financial proceedings begin.
Victims may experience interrupted careers, reduced earning capacity, damaged credit histories, coerced borrowing, restricted access to bank accounts, concealed assets, business manipulation, pension disadvantage, housing insecurity and extensive litigation costs.
These outcomes are not incidental.
They frequently become the very issues financial remedy proceedings seek to resolve.
Yet the behavioural mechanisms that created them often remain analytically separate from the financial assessment itself.
This creates an important jurisprudential question.
Can financial fairness be assessed fully if the financial architecture created by coercive control remains largely outside the conduct analysis?
This paper argues that contemporary financial remedy proceedings should increasingly distinguish between two different questions.
The first asks whether behaviour was morally exceptional.
The second asks whether behaviour materially distorted financial fairness.
These are not identical enquiries.
The first focuses upon conduct.
The second focuses upon consequence.
That distinction may become increasingly significant as family justice continues developing its understanding of coercive control, economic abuse and post-separation harm.
Accordingly, this paper examines the evolution of conduct jurisprudence, considers recent developments concerning domestic abuse within financial remedies, and proposes an alternative governance framework through which financial fairness may be analysed while remaining consistent with the statutory purpose of section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
The objective is not to redefine conduct.
It is to examine whether fairness itself should increasingly be assessed through a broader understanding of how coercive control reshapes financial reality.
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453)
Global Governance Series™
GGS-003 — The Glass Through Which Fairness Is Assessed™
The SAFECHAIN™, Recognition Intelligence™, Participation Integrity™, Financial Remedy Integrity™, Disclosure Integrity™, Coercive Debt Assessment™, Financial Fairness Matrix™, and associated methodologies described in this publication are original intellectual property created by Samantha Avril-Andreassen.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted, implemented, translated, distributed, or incorporated into any governance framework, software, educational programme, policy, commercial product, artificial intelligence system, or institutional methodology without the prior written permission of the copyright holder, except for brief quotations used for academic review or criticism in accordance with applicable copyright law.
The analysis contained within this paper is provided for academic, research, policy, and educational purposes. It should not be relied upon as legal advice. References to legislation and case law are intended to support scholarly discussion of governance and institutional reform.
Version 1.0