FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Saidov & Saidov (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 223
File number(s): CAC 493 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE PARKER Date of judgment: 6 February 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – adjournment application made where Mother failed to attend Court while under cross-examination – application refused Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, r 15.19 Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175
Buljubasic & Buljubasic [1999] FamCA 474; (1999) FLC ¶92-865
Haines & Rader (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 685
Langley & Tarelli and Anor (No 2) (2020) FLC ¶93-963
Magjarraj v Asteron Life Limited [2009] NSWSC 1433
Myron & Milson [2020] FamCAFC 151; (2020) FLC ¶93-969
Novikov & Novikov [2024] FedCFamC1A 56
Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1; (1997) 189 CLR 146
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 16 Date of hearing: 6 February 2025 Place: Adelaide Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Betro Solicitor for the Applicant: Eastern Legal Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Bowler Solicitor for the Respondent: Debra Spizzo And Associates Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Fuda Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Comley Legal ORDERS
CAC 493 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR SAIDOV
Applicant
AND: MS SAIDOV
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE PARKER
DATE OF ORDER:
6 FEBRUARY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The adjournment application made by the Mother is refused.
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).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE PARKER:
These reasons were delivered ex tempore and have been settled from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected, citations have been added and amendments have been made to make the orally delivered reasons clear and easy to read.
The application before the Court is an application made on behalf of the Mother to adjourn the final hearing of this matter. The overall proceeding relates to both property and parenting matters and includes an application by the Father for a…
Continue reading Saidov & Saidov (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Saidov & Saidov (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 223
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC2F 223
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue in this case was whether the Court should grant the adjournment application submitted by the Mother, Ms Saidov, who did not attend Court while under cross-examination. This issue necessitated a thorough examination of the relevant family law principles, procedural rules, and the precedents that guide the Court in such matters.
The Court, presided over by Judge Parker, meticulously reviewed the circumstances surrounding the adjournment application. The Court concluded that the Mother's failure to attend Court while under cross-examination was not sufficient grounds to warrant an adjournment. Judge Parker's decision was grounded in the necessity to maintain the integrity of the legal process and ensure that all parties adhered to the Court’s procedures. Consequently, the Court ruled that the adjournment application was refused, maintaining the scheduled proceedings without delay.
The Court's order, dated 6 February 2025, explicitly stated that the adjournment application made by the Mother was refused. This decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance in family law matters, ensuring that the Court’s processes are respected and upheld. The form of the order, as noted, is subject to the Court's records and may be subject to minor corrections or variations as per the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Orders
Orders of the court
CAC 493 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MR SAIDOV
Applicant
AND:
MS SAIDOV
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE PARKER
DATE OF ORDER:
6 FEBRUARY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The adjournment application made by the Mother is refused.
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.