Kane & Kane

In the matter of Kane & Kane, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, comprised of Faulks DCJ, and May and Johnston JJ, allowed the wife's appeal and remitted the case for rehearing before a different judge. The wife had appealed the trial judge's findings on the contributions made by both parties to their superannuation fund, as well as the trial judge's decision not to make an adjustment in her favour under s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The husband cross-appealed against the money order, arguing there was a mathematical error. The Court found that the trial judge had miscarried in his discretion by attributing excessive weight to the husband's investment acumen and the resulting success of one particular investment, which led to orders that were not just and equitable. The Court also found that the notion of "special contributions" should not necessarily predispose to a particular outcome. The Court allowed both appeals and remitted the case for rehearing before a different judge, with costs certificates awarded to both parties for the appeals and the rehearing.