Paquet & Sykora - [2025] FedCFamC2F 389

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Paquet & Sykora [2025] FedCFamC2F 389

File number(s): MLC 2394 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE GLASS

Date of judgment: 25 March 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – where an application for divorce was filed by the Husband in Australia – where the Wife contends Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum – where the Wife adduces no expert evidence of Country D law – where the Wife invoked this Court’s jurisdiction for financial relief – where the parties were found to been living separately and apart – where the Husband’s application for divorce is granted

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 39, 48, 49

Cases cited:
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Shi (2021) 273 CLR 235

Diamond & Diamond (2024) FLC 94-223

Henry & Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571

Keane & Keane & Anor (2021) 62 Fam LR 190

Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd (2005) 233 CLR 331

Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197

Pathak & Hardikar (2022) FLC 94-111

Re B v B (Jurisdiction) (2003) FLC 93-136

Talwar & Sarai (2018) FLC 93-855

Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 25

Date of last submission/s: 19 March 2025

Date of hearing: 19 March 2025

Place: Melbourne

The Applicant: Self-represented litigant

The Respondent: Self-represented litigant
ORDERS

MLC 2394 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR PAQUET

Applicant

AND:
MS SYKORA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE GLASS

DATE OF ORDER:

25 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant’s application for divorce is granted.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE GLASS

Mr Paquet and Ms Sykora were married in Country D in 2012.
On 1 March 2024, Mr Paquet filed an application for divorce. Ms Sykora opposes the granting of the application.
Ms Sykora represented herself at the hearing of the application and was assisted by an interpreter. Her submissions, evidence, and cross-examination of Mr Paquet were difficult to follow.
Doing the best I can, it seems Ms Sykora contends that Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Paquet & Sykora

Details

AGLC: Paquet & Sykora [2025] FedCFamC2F 389
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2F 389
Decision Date: 25 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dealt with a divorce application by Mr Paquet against Ms Sykora. Ms Sykora argued that Australia was an inappropriate forum for the proceedings, but she failed to provide any expert evidence regarding the law of Country D. Despite this, she sought financial relief from this court. The court found that the parties had been living separately and apart. The primary legal issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to grant the divorce and whether the application should be dismissed due to the inappropriate forum argument. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and found that, although the Wife argued that Country D was the more appropriate jurisdiction, she had not provided any expert evidence to substantiate this claim. Consequently, the court concluded that it had jurisdiction to grant the divorce and proceeded to consider the merits of the application. The court ultimately determined that the parties had been living separately and apart, which met the criteria for granting a divorce under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Therefore, the court granted the Applicant's application for divorce.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 2394 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR PAQUET

Applicant

AND:

MS SYKORA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE GLASS

DATE OF ORDER:

25 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Applicant’s application for divorce is granted.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	MLC 2394 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE GLASS
Date of judgment:	25 March 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – where an application for divorce was filed by the Husband in Australia – where the Wife contends Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum – where the Wife adduces no expert evidence of Country D law – where the Wife invoked this Court’s jurisdiction for financial relief – where the parties were found to been living separately and apart – where the Husband’s application for divorce is granted
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 39, 48, 49
Cases cited:	Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Shi (2021) 273 CLR 235 Diamond & Diamond (2024) FLC 94-223 Henry & Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571 Keane & Keane & Anor (2021) 62 Fam LR 190 Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd (2005) 233 CLR 331 Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197 Pathak & Hardikar (2022) FLC 94-111 Re B v B (Jurisdiction) (2003) FLC 93-136 Talwar & Sarai (2018) FLC 93-855 Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	25
Date of last submission/s:	19 March 2025
Date of hearing:	19 March 2025
Place:	Melbourne
The Applicant:	Self-represented litigant
The Respondent:	Self-represented litigant

MLC 2394 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR PAQUET Applicant
AND:	MS SYKORA Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE GLASS
DATE OF ORDER:	25 MARCH 2025