The controversial reason husband accused of assault after his estranged wife read his dating app emails to their kids scored huge court win
A dispute between an estranged husband and wife has triggered a landmark legal ruling for Australia.
- A judge classified emails as property
- A man grabbed his ex-wife as she read his emails
- Assault is defensible while defending property
- READ MORE: Four things you MUST do before you divorce your partner
By ASHLEY NICKEL, NEWS REPORTER, AUSTRALIA
Published: 12:57 GMT, 28 December 2025 | Updated: 16:14 GMT, 28 December 2025
An assault case between an estranged husband and wife has redefined 'property' under Australian law to include emails and text messages.
District Court judge Garry Neilson ruled to overturn a Sydney man's assault charge last week after he grabbed his wife's arm to stop her reading his emails to their children.
The ex-husband, given the pseudonym Mr Xerri, told the court he had moved back into the family home amid an ongoing bitter child custody battle.
He took to wearing a body camera around the home In order to protect himself from false allegations, the court heard.
That camera captured the moment he grabbed his wife's arm to try and recover his iPad, the Sunday Telegraph reported.
The woman had been reading Mr Xerri's emails - including dating app notifications from Bumble, vasectomy inquiries and ads for luxury holidays - to their children at the dining room table, which fuelled the man's fear his children would think less of him.
Mr Xerri tried to take the iPad from his wife and grabbed her arm when she pulled back and brushed his hand away.
He was then charged and convicted of common assault by the Local Court.
A man was convicted of common assault after grabbing his wife's arm to stop her reading his emails to their children
The man's emails included dating app notifications from Bumble, vasectomy inquiries and ads for luxury holidays
Under NSW law, assault is defensible if a person was using physical force to protect their property.
Judge Neilson set a new precedent for Australia by accepting the emails were, in fact, Mr Xerri's property.
'The answer must be yes: they were sent to him by the relevant sender, not to the (wife). In short, the complainant was interfering with the appellant's property, with his emails,' the judge told the court.