Coercive Control
Economic Abuse, and the Evolution of Fairness in Financial Remedy Proceedings
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™ Policy & Innovation Initiative
Introduction
For decades, family law largely treated financial remedy proceedings as exercises in arithmetic, disclosure, and asset distribution. Courts focused on property schedules, liabilities, pensions, maintenance calculations, and “clean break” outcomes, often separating financial arrangements from the emotional and psychological realities of abusive relationships.
However, DB v PB [2016] represented an important shift in judicial understanding. The case contributed to the growing recognition that coercive and controlling behaviour does not end at emotional harm alone; it frequently extends into the architecture of financial dependency, economic restriction, procedural disadvantage, and post-separation instability.
The significance of the case lies not merely in its outcome, but in what it symbolised: an early judicial acknowledgement that coercive control can fundamentally distort the fairness of financial proceedings themselves.
The Hidden Reality of Economic Abuse
Economic abuse is one of the least understood forms of domestic abuse, despite being one of the most structurally devastating.
Unlike physical violence, economic abuse often operates invisibly through:
debt creation;
financial dependency;
restriction of employment;
control of banking access;
concealment of assets;
manipulation of disclosure;
reputational harm;
litigation exhaustion;
housing instability;
and long-term credit destruction.
The victim may appear “financially weak” before the court while the underlying reason for that weakness remains obscured by procedural formality.
This creates a dangerous paradox within financial remedy litigation:
the abusive party may manufacture the very financial instability later relied upon as evidence against the vulnerable party.
DB v PB [2016] helped expose this contradiction.
Coercive Control Beyond the Relationship
The importance of the case is that it recognised coercive control as a continuing system of domination rather than a series of isolated interpersonal incidents.
Coercive control often survives separation through:
strategic litigation;
disclosure imbalance;
debt pressure;
procedural overwhelm;
delayed proceedings;
withholding of resources;
and economic attrition.
The family court system historically focused heavily on visible assets while often underestimating:
participation impairment,
trauma responses,
financial exhaustion,
and informational asymmetry between parties.
This has profound implications for procedural fairness.
A litigant subjected to prolonged coercive behaviour may:
struggle to participate effectively;
lack access to financial documents;
experience cognitive impairment under stress;
agree to unfair settlements to escape litigation;
or appear “unreasonable” due to trauma responses generated by the abuse itself.
The issue therefore becomes constitutional as much as personal:
can proceedings truly be fair where coercive control has structurally distorted one party’s ability to participate?
Financial Remedies and the Illusion of Neutrality
Family courts often present financial remedy proceedings as neutral balancing exercises. Yet neutrality can become illusory where the underlying financial landscape has already been shaped by coercive conduct.
This is particularly visible in cases involving:
hidden business interests;
undeclared assets;
coercive debt;
manipulated affordability;
post-separation impoverishment;
and strategic economic pressure.
The doctrine emerging from cases such as DB v PB [2016] is therefore broader than domestic abuse alone. It concerns whether courts properly recognise how power operates within financial systems.
A settlement cannot be considered genuinely fair if:
one party controls all financial information;
one party controls access to housing;
one party dictates litigation resources;
or one party has been systematically destabilised prior to adjudication.
The Rise of “Coercive Debt”
One of the most important conceptual developments arising from modern economic abuse analysis is the recognition of coercive debt.
Coercive debt refers to liabilities that arise through:
manipulation,
dependency,
intimidation,
litigation imbalance,
or economically abusive conduct.
This may include:
debts incurred through coercive spending control;
liabilities arising from forced dependency;
legal costs generated through procedural overwhelm;
or housing and credit deterioration directly connected to abusive conduct.
Historically, courts treated debt as neutral arithmetic.
Modern safeguarding analysis increasingly recognises that debt may itself become:
a mechanism of control,
a continuation of abuse,
and a barrier to meaningful participation in justice.
This is where the significance of DB v PB [2016] becomes particularly important. The case contributed to a growing judicial understanding that fairness cannot be assessed purely through financial spreadsheets detached from behavioural realities.
The Intersection with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021
The principles reflected in DB v PB [2016] gained further statutory reinforcement through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
The Act explicitly recognises economic abuse as domestic abuse, including conduct affecting a person’s ability to:
acquire property;
maintain financial resources;
secure housing;
or achieve economic independence.
This represented a major legal shift.
Economic abuse was no longer merely a social or psychological concept; it became a recognised legal harm with direct relevance to safeguarding and procedural fairness.
Procedural Fairness and Participation Integrity
The wider implication of the case is that procedural fairness cannot exist where participation itself has been compromised.
This connects directly to:
vulnerability guidance;
and modern trauma-informed safeguarding principles.
A justice system that ignores coercive financial dynamics risks reproducing the abuse through procedure itself.
The danger is not merely unfair outcomes.
The danger is institutional participation in structural harm.
Where courts fail to identify:
the legal process itself may become an extension of coercive control.
Why the Case Still Matters Today
DB v PB [2016] remains significant because it contributed to the evolution of family law from:
purely financial calculation,
toward:behavioural, psychological, and structural fairness analysis.
The case forms part of the wider movement toward recognising:
economic abuse as safeguarding harm;
procedural inequality as a justice issue;
and participation impairment as central to fair adjudication.
Its importance lies not only in domestic abuse jurisprudence, but in the constitutional question it raises:
Can justice remain truly fair when financial systems, litigation processes, and procedural structures fail to recognise the realities of coercive control?
That question remains one of the defining safeguarding and legal challenges of modern family justice.
Read LinkedIn Article Here
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAIN™ Policy & Innovation Initiative
SAFECHAIN™ Intelligence Hub
silent-screams-loud-strength | Unmasking Justice