Rigby & Kingston (No. 4)

In the matter of *Rigby & Kingston (No. 4)*, Carew J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between Mr Rigby (applicant) and Ms Kingston (respondent), with other respondents also involved. The core of the dispute revolved around property settlement following the parties' separation after a long marriage. A key point of contention was the husband's assertion that it was not just and equitable to make property orders until the entirety of the property pool, including the wife's interests in various trusts and companies within the Kingston Group, had been fully valued.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included identifying the wife's existing legal and equitable interests in property, particularly within the Kingston Group entities, and assessing the impact of an Umbrella Deed on these interests. Furthermore, the court needed to ascertain whether the wife's rights as a discretionary beneficiary in various trusts and as a shareholder in companies constituted property for the purposes of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and if so, whether these rights held any practical value. Finally, the court had to decide if it was just and equitable to make an order under section 79(1) of the Act, considering the husband's argument that such a determination was premature without complete valuations.

Carew J's reasoning focused on the nature and valuation of the wife's interests. The court examined whether the wife's rights as a beneficiary and shareholder were indeed property under the Act and whether they possessed any realisable value. The court also considered the effect of the Umbrella Deed on these interests. The husband's contention that the proceedings were premature due to incomplete valuations was weighed against the need to determine the just and equitable distribution of property.

The court directed that the matter be listed for the pronouncement of orders on a date to be advised, and also listed the husband's application for spouse maintenance for a future hearing. The parties were requested to confer and jointly inform the associate of the court regarding a convenient date for the pronouncement of orders.