Field and Kingston (No 3) - [2019] FamCA 299

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FIELD & KINGSTON (NO. 3)

[2019] FamCA 299

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim property – where trial directions have been made – where there are outstanding interim issues as to financial disclosure – where the husband seeks an order that the wife produce documents relating to her Centrelink payments – where the husband seeks orders for a warrant for the arrest of two people because he alleges they have failed to comply with a subpoena – were the orders sought and not made in the husband’s Application in a Case are dismissed.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 128
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 1.04, 1.07

Social Security (Administration) Act1999 (Cth) s 207

Field & Kingston [2017] FamCA 1071
Field & Kingston [2017] FamCA 208
Field & Kingston [2019] FamCA 14

APPLICANT:

Ms Field

RESPONDENT:

Mr Kingston

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

2095

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

13 May 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Hannam J

HEARING DATE:

6 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Lloyd

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Barkus Doolan

Orders

Orders 1, 3 and 4 of the husband’s Application in a Case filed 18 April 2019 are dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Field & Kingston has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC2095/2014

Ms Field

Applicant

And

Mr Kingston

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The parties have been involved in a dispute for a number of years in relation to a settlement of their property following the breakdown of their 12 year marriage.
The proceedings have been on foot for four years but the final hearing has only recently been fixed to take place on 14 – 18 October 2019 before another judge in this registry. There have been numerous applications to this court to date and one appeal concerning an interlocutory matter.
Notwithstanding that trial directions have been made and the proceedings are being prepared for final hearing, the parties continue to make applications for further orders in relation to various matters including matters relating to preparation for final hearing.
On 6 May 2019 in the course of a duty list I dealt with an Application in the Case filed by each of the parties who sought various orders in relation to a range of matters including the sale of the only significant asset of the parties, an application that warrants issue for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Field and Kingston (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Field and Kingston (No 3) [2019] FamCA 299
Case: [2019] FamCA 299
Decision Date: 13 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Field and Kingston (No 3)*, Hannam J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application by the husband concerning property settlement and spousal maintenance. The wife sought to have certain of the husband's orders dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the husband's applications for orders relating to property settlement and spousal maintenance should be dismissed. This involved an assessment of the husband's compliance with previous court orders and the overall conduct of the proceedings.

Hannam J dismissed the husband's applications, finding that his conduct had been such that it was appropriate to do so. The court's reasoning appears to have been based on the husband's failure to comply with prior directions and orders, leading to significant delays and costs in the proceedings. The court applied principles relating to the management of litigation and the need for parties to engage constructively with the court process.

Consequently, orders 1, 3, and 4 of the husband’s Application in a Case filed on 18 April 2019 were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders 1, 3 and 4 of the husband’s Application in a Case filed 18 April 2019 are dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.