Pachris & Tajir (No 3)
Case
•
[2023] FedCFamC1A 230
•13 December 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Pachris & Tajir (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1A 230
[2023] FedCFamC1A 230
13 December 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the appellant, Mr Pachris, appeals against the parenting orders made by the primary judge, Ms Aldridge, in favour of the respondent, Ms Tajir. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary judge made findings of sexual assault, violence, and coercive and controlling behaviour by the father against the mother, leading to orders that the children were to live with the mother and spend no time with the father. The father challenges these findings, arguing that some matters cast doubt on the mother’s evidence and that the primary judge erred in her assessment of credibility and reliability.
The court was required to determine whether the primary judge's findings were affected by impressions of credibility and demeanour, which would require the father to show that these findings were glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences. The court found that while some demeanour-based findings were made, the majority were based on the content of the evidence, and the father had not shown that these findings were affected by such impressions or were glaringly improbable. The court also examined the evidence provided by the Family Report, which supported the primary judge's findings of risk.
The court reasoned that the path of reasoning was readily identifiable, and the findings of sexual assault, violence, and coercive and controlling behaviour were supported by the evidence. The court concluded that the outcome could not be described as unreasonable or plainly unjust. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay the costs of the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
In summary, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the primary judge's findings, ordering the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal and the Independent Children's Lawyer. The court found that the primary judge's reasoning was sound, and the findings were supported by the evidence, leading to the conclusion that the outcome was reasonable and just.
The court was required to determine whether the primary judge's findings were affected by impressions of credibility and demeanour, which would require the father to show that these findings were glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences. The court found that while some demeanour-based findings were made, the majority were based on the content of the evidence, and the father had not shown that these findings were affected by such impressions or were glaringly improbable. The court also examined the evidence provided by the Family Report, which supported the primary judge's findings of risk.
The court reasoned that the path of reasoning was readily identifiable, and the findings of sexual assault, violence, and coercive and controlling behaviour were supported by the evidence. The court concluded that the outcome could not be described as unreasonable or plainly unjust. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay the costs of the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
In summary, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the primary judge's findings, ordering the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal and the Independent Children's Lawyer. The court found that the primary judge's reasoning was sound, and the findings were supported by the evidence, leading to the conclusion that the outcome was reasonable and just.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Parenting
-
Sexual Assault
-
Violence
-
Coercive and Controlling Behaviour
-
Causation
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Argyri & Conroy [2025] FedCFamC1A 6
Cases Citing This Decision
18
Shinohara & Shinohara
[2025] FedCFamC1A 126
Couldrey & Sedgwick
[2025] FedCFamC1A 125
Steen & Crespo
[2025] FedCFamC1A 90
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
2
Pachris & Tajir
[2023] FedCFamC1A 60
Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd
[2009] NSWCA 110
DL v The Queen
[2018] HCA 26