Kingston & Field (No 2)

Kingston & Field (No 2) involved an appeal against property settlement orders made by the Family Court of Australia. The appellant contested the settlement, alleging the primary judge had erred in assessing contributions and procedural fairness. The court was tasked with determining whether the primary judge’s assessment of contributions and the exercise of discretion under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) were correct. The appellant argued that the primary judge failed to consider material facts and omitted to address the alleged bias. The court examined whether the primary judge's reasons were adequate and whether there was any denial of procedural fairness.

The Full Court found that the appellant could not establish discretionary error in the primary judge’s assessment of the parties’ contributions or in the exercise of discretion under section 75(2). The court held that the primary judge’s reasons were adequate and that there was no miscarriage in the assessment. The appeal against the property settlement orders was dismissed as the appealed orders were not unreasonable or plainly unjust. The court also noted that no procedural unfairness was evident, and the appellant’s contentions lacked an evidentiary premise or were plainly wrong. The Full Court further allowed the appellant to rely on a summary of argument exceeding the permitted length, as it assisted the self-represented appellant without causing detriment.

The court ordered that certain affidavits and annexures be received as further evidence in the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal in a fixed sum of $33,000. This cost order was made considering the appellant’s financial circumstances and the lack of evidentiary basis for his contentions.