UU����ֱ��

It is now widely accepted that domestic abuse is much broader than physical violence between partners and there is increasingly more awareness of the many forms domestic abuse can take, including – but not limited to – verbal, emotional, psychological, sexual, controlling, coercive or economic abuse. There are however still misconceptions and often the nuances of the ways in which these types of abuse can present are not fully understood and recognised. DP V EP [2023] EWFC 6 is a financial case which serves as a helpful reminder of whether a party’s conduct amounts to economic abuse, as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (DAA 2021).  

DAA 2021

In 2021, DAA 2021 came partly into force, offering definitions, sanctions for offenders, support for victims and creating statutory powers for the Domestic Abuse Commissioner.

Domestic abuse is defined in DAA 2021, s 1(2) as the behaviour of a person (A) towards another person (B) where:

• A and B are each aged 16 or over and are personally connected to each other, and
• the behaviour is abusive

For the purposes of DAA 2021, two people are ’personally connected‘ to each other if any of the following applies (per DAA 2021, s 2):

• they are, or have been, married to each other
• they are, or have been, civil partners of each other
• they have agreed to marry one another (whether or not the agreement has been terminated)
• they have entered into a civil partnership agreement (whether or not the agreement has been terminated)
• they are, or have been, in an intimate personal relationship with each other
• they each have, or there has been a time when they each have had, a parental relationship in relation to the same child
• they are relatives

DAA 2021 also provides various examples of the forms domestic abuse can take (at DAA 2021, s 1(3)), and in relation to economic abuse provides the following definition at DAA 2021, s 1(4):

‘“Economic abuse” means any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect on B’s ability to—

(a) acquire, use or maintain money or other property, or

(b) obtain goods or services.’

Economic abuse

Often economic abuse is something we expect to see signs of on a day-to-day basis – perhaps with bank card access being limited, spending being restricted, monitored or questioned, or maybe through double standards within what one party allows themselves to spend and the rules they enforce upon the other.

Earlier this year HHJ Reardon considered that economic abuse can also occur ‘in the longer term, if not on a day-to-day basis’. This highlights that, like other forms of abuse, economic abuse may not be immediately apparent to a victim – or indeed anyone else – but when a pattern of behaviour is considered on the whole, and the longer term effects become apparent, the definitions in DAA 2021 are met and the misconduct is evident.

DP V EP [2023] EWFC 6

The case before HHJ Reardon was at a final hearing in financial remedy proceedings. The parties had three adult children and, despite some irregularities which were addressed in full in the judgment, the marriage, for the court’s purpose, was 24 years long.

It should be noted that the husband in the case was ‘functionally illiterate’ and was supported by the wife in many day-to-day decisions during the relationship. Despite this he had built up a successful career and his income ‘contributed to the parties’ ability to provide a comfortable lifestyle for themselves and their children’ (para [6]).

There were a number of issues before the court, where the wife was found to have given an incorrect or unconvincing account of events and the husband’s version was accepted. As part of this it was held that the wife had been diverting funds, that both parties had contributed to, for her own purposes.

HHJ Reardon held that this conduct was not only negligent and in breach of the wife’s duty of care to the husband, it was also, at times, fraudulent and amounted to abuse under DAA 2021 (paras [145] and [147]).

HHJ Reardon explained that even though the wife’s acts of diverting the funds had been some time ago, these actions were still having an adverse effect on the husband’s ability to use his money, in that he was not able to do so and this would be a long term issue. It is clear to see how the judge then reached the conclusion that this conduct met the definition in DAA 2021, even if not on a day-to-day basis, as timing is not a requirement.

The case serves as a reminder of the mechanics of economic abuse and the fact that this conduct can go unnoticed for many years.  The delay in such abuse being recognised does not impact upon whether it falls within the definitions in DAA 2021, where it can be established that the victim has suffered harm as a consequence of the conduct.

Conclusion

Following DP V EP, it is clear that economic abuse can be committed even if there is gap between the action and the impact for the victim. This is a reminder to look carefully at an overall picture of a case, especially where a party has specific vulnerabilities. 

There is perhaps a question about how far this definition can be pushed, as in the present case the wife’s intentions were found to be quite certain but not all fact patterns will be so clear-cut.

Beth Critchley is a solicitor at .