Field and Kingston (No 3)

In *Field & Kingston (No. 3)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife (Ms. Field) for her appointment as trustee for the sale of a property registered in the husband's (Mr. Kingston's) name. The wife also sought to restrain the husband from making a vendor's bid at the upcoming auction of the property. The dispute arose in the context of property settlement orders made previously, which had been subject to numerous subsequent applications.

The court was required to determine whether to appoint the wife as trustee for the sale of the property, and whether to grant an injunction restraining the husband from making a vendor's bid. The wife's application for appointment as trustee was based on her apprehension that the husband would not act to achieve the best possible sale price, citing his alleged refusal to agree to a five per cent deposit, his failure to initiate the reserve price ascertainment mechanism, and the fear that he would make an unrealistically high vendor bid.

Justice Wilson dismissed the wife's application for appointment as trustee, finding insufficient evidence to support her contentions. The court noted that the auction contract specifically contemplated vendor bids, and the wife had not demonstrated a serious issue to be tried or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction, referencing the principles in *American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd*. Furthermore, the court observed that the risk of conflict between duty and interest would arise if the wife were appointed trustee, as she might agree to any price obtained at auction. The application for the wife's appointment as trustee was therefore refused.

The court ordered that the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application were reserved.