Saidov & Saidov - [2025] FedCFamC1A 49

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Saidov & Saidov [2025] FedCFamC1A 49

Appeal from: Saidov & Saidov [2025] FedCFamC2F 165

Appeal number: NAA 87 of 2025

File number: CAC 493 of 2020

Judgment of: AUSTIN J

Date of judgment: 19 March 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Show cause – Where the appellant was invited to show cause why her appeal should not be summarily dismissed – Where the refusal of an adjournment application is not a judgment from which any appeal validly lies – Where the interim parenting orders have been overtaken by more recent orders – Appeal summarily dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pts VII, VIII, s 117

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 26, 46

Number of paragraphs: 15

Date of hearing: 19 March 2025

Place: Newcastle (via MS Teams)

The Appellant: Litigant in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Pangallo

Solicitor for the Respondent: Eastern Legal Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Fuda

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Comley Legal
ORDERS

NAA 87 of 2025
CAC 493 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:
MS SAIDOV

Appellant

AND:
MR SAIDOV

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

AUSTIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The appellant shall pay the respondent’s party/party costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $601.10.
3.The appellant shall pay the ICL’s party/party costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $436.

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).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Saidov & Saidov has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AUSTIN J:

These reasons explain why this appeal is summarily dismissed.
Proceedings between the parties in respect of their children under Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) have been on foot since 2020, while property settlement proceedings under Pt VIII of the Act were initiated in 2021.
The trial of the parenting cause began in April 2024. It was originally listed for four days but it has endured for much longer and is still part-heard.
On 6 February 2025, the trial was listed for its tenth day of hearing. The mother was not present at Court that day, though she was represented by…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Saidov & Saidov and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FedCFamC1A 49
Decision Date: 19 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Saidov appealed against a decision to refuse her application for an adjournment of an interim parenting order, as well as the dismissal of her appeal against that order. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found that the appeal was not valid, and dismissed it summarily. The court found that the refusal of an adjournment application is not a judgment from which any appeal validly lies. Furthermore, the interim parenting orders had been overtaken by more recent orders. The court also noted that Ms Saidov had been invited to show cause why her appeal should not be summarily dismissed, but she failed to provide sufficient grounds. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, and that Ms Saidov pay the costs of the appeal in a fixed sum of $1,037.10 to the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

The court considered the relevant legal principles and found that the appeal did not meet the criteria for an appeal from an interlocutory order. The court also found that the appeal had not been brought within the required time frame. The court noted that the interim parenting orders had been replaced by more recent orders, and that the appeal was therefore moot. The court also considered the conduct of Ms Saidov, and found that she had failed to provide sufficient grounds for the appeal. The court found that the appeal should be dismissed, and that costs should be awarded to the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

In conclusion, the court found that the appeal was not valid, and dismissed it summarily. The court found that the refusal of an adjournment application is not a judgment from which any appeal validly lies, and that the interim parenting orders had been overtaken by more recent orders. The court also found that Ms Saidov had failed to provide sufficient grounds for the appeal, and that her appeal should be dismissed. The court ordered that Ms Saidov pay the costs of the appeal in a fixed sum of $1,037.10 to the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. This decision provides guidance on the criteria for an appeal from an interlocutory order, and the importance of providing sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 87 of 2025

CAC 493 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MS SAIDOV

Appellant

AND:

MR SAIDOV

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

AUSTIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant shall pay the respondent’s party/party costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $601.10.

3. The appellant shall pay the ICL’s party/party costs of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $436.

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).

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.

NAA 87 of 2025 CAC 493 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:	MS SAIDOV Appellant
AND:	MR SAIDOV Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

Appeal from:	Saidov & Saidov [2025] FedCFamC2F 165
Appeal number:	NAA 87 of 2025
File number:	CAC 493 of 2020
Judgment of:	AUSTIN J
Date of judgment:	19 March 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Practice and procedure – Show cause – Where the appellant was invited to show cause why her appeal should not be summarily dismissed – Where the refusal of an adjournment application is not a judgment from which any appeal validly lies – Where the interim parenting orders have been overtaken by more recent orders – Appeal summarily dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pts VII, VIII, s 117 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 26, 46
Number of paragraphs:	15
Date of hearing:	19 March 2025
Place:	Newcastle (via MS Teams)
The Appellant:	Litigant in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Pangallo
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Eastern Legal Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Ms Fuda
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Comley Legal

ORDER MADE BY:	AUSTIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 MARCH 2025