Economic abuse goes beyond being secretive about spending or disagreeing over a household budget. Essentially, it is classed as behaviour that substantially damages another person’s ability to acquire, use, or maintain money or property, or obtain goods or services.
For example, a husband might insist that his wife pays her wages into an account only he can access, then require her to justify ordinary purchases. Another spouse may pressure their partner into borrowing money for their benefit with repayments continuing long after separation.
Interference with employment can be equally damaging; behaviour such as repeatedly turning up at a partner’s workplace or sabotaging childcare may eventually force them to resign. The resulting dependence from such behaviour can be profound; it is now recognised that interference with employment and coerced finances are forms of economic abuse.
The current law does not automatically award more to the victim
The court considers each spouse’s resources and needs, including their earning capacity, with first consideration given to the welfare of any child of the family under 18. Section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 allows the court to consider conduct where it would be inequitable to disregard. The threshold is high. Behaviour may amount to domestic abuse without ultimately changing the financial award.”
This can be difficult to accept, particularly where controlling behaviour has dominated the marriage. A conduct claim is not the only way the consequences of abuse can become relevant. If the behaviour has contributed to unemployment or ill health, for example, the resulting financial needs still have to be considered.
The importance of linking behaviour to financial consequences
In N v J [2024] EWFC 184, Mr Justice Peel reaffirmed the high threshold for personal misconduct in financial remedy proceedings. The judgment emphasised the need to establish the alleged facts, explain why they satisfy that threshold, and identify the negative financial impact caused by them.
Simply saying that a spouse controlled the finances is unlikely to be enough. What did they actually do, and what financial consequences followed? For example, consider a spouse who discovers that substantial savings have been diverted into their partner’s sole account. The relevant evidence would need to show where the money went and the circumstances of the transactions. The difference between the account balances does not, by itself, establish what happened. The court still needs to understand where the money went and why.
Debts can outlast the marriage
Coerced borrowing can leave someone feeling that the debt belongs to their former partner even though the lender is pursuing them personally. It is now accepted that economic abuse can involve borrowing imposed through coercion, or debts created without the victim’s knowledge.
A loan used to meet ordinary family expenses presents a different issue from borrowing a spouse was pressured to obtain for the other’s private spending. The application documents and the destination of the funds may help explain what actually happened, and financial disclosure through Form E includes debts which gives the court a starting point for that investigation.
That said, allocating responsibility between spouses does not ordinarily rewrite a lender’s contractual rights, so an order requiring one spouse to pay a joint debt does not itself release the other borrower. Where a debt was taken out fraudulently, its enforceability may need separate police investigation, or where it was signed under pressure, specialist debt advice may be needed.
Could economic abuse affect spousal maintenance?
Someone whose earning capacity has been damaged may need support while they become financially independent, provided the other spouse has the means to pay. Spousal maintenance is not awarded as a punishment for abusive behaviour. The court still has to decide what level of maintenance, if any, is justified by the couple’s financial circumstances. In addition, the receiving spouse’s position needs special treatment if future financial control and economic abuse is to be avoided. For example, capitalisation of spousal maintenance may remove the likelihood of such behaviour continuing long-term and facilitate a clean break between the parties.
Evidence should explain the pattern and its practical effect
Not every victim of economic abuse will have a complete documentary record, especially where the behaviour involved being denied access to paperwork. A solicitor can help identify the issues that require proof and the evidence that can realistically be obtained.
Documents should be preserved, provided it is done so legally; discovering a password does not give someone unrestricted permission to enter their spouse’s private accounts, and concerns about hidden finances should be addressed through financial disclosure rather than via snooping.
The government is considering a different approach
The government’s A Fairer End to Relationships consultation, launched in June 2026, asked whether domestic abuse should more readily influence financial outcomes. It sought views on whether abuse should matter only exceptionally, where it has a clear financial impact, or more generally where it is established.
For now, these remain proposals for reform. They do not give someone who has experienced domestic abuse an automatic right to a larger share of the assets.
Seeking a settlement that reflects life after abuse
For someone leaving an economically abusive relationship, an apparently equal division may appear unfair especially if one spouse cannot borrow because of a damaged credit history or return promptly to work to boost their income.
The best course of action is to show how the behaviour has affected the spouse’s financial position and what provision is needed as a result that allows them to move forward securely. The important point is to identify the financial consequences of the abuse rather than simply attach a label to the behaviour. A financial settlement cannot undo what happened during the marriage. It can, however, address the financial circumstances the victim is left facing when it ends.