Saidov & Saidov (No 4)

The case of Saidov & Saidov (No 4) involved complex parenting and property settlement proceedings between the parties, MR SAIDOV (the Father) and MS SAIDOV (the Mother). The court was required to decide on the care arrangements for their three children and the division of their property. The legal issues included whether the children were at risk of harm from the Mother, the classification of certain funds as gifts or loans, and the admissibility of evidence elicited by a counsel without a valid practising certificate.

The court found that the children were at unacceptable risk of harm from the Mother due to her mental health issues, failure to support their relationship with the Father, and non-compliance with court orders. The court preferred the Father's evidence over the Mother's as it was supported by independent records. As a result, the court ordered that the children live with the Father and have no contact with the Mother, except for limited communication by prepaid post. The court also granted restraining orders against the Mother to protect the children from her.

Regarding the property settlement, the court held that certain funds received from the De Facto Husband's parents were a gift and not a loan. The court also ruled that funds withdrawn by the De Facto Wife from superannuation should not be added back. The court ordered the division of property between the parties, including the transfer of ownership of a property and the payment of a settlement sum by the De Facto Husband to the De Facto Wife.

In relation to the admissibility of evidence, the court held that evidence elicited by a counsel without a valid practising certificate should not be excluded under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), as the primary focus should be on the truth of the evidence rather than the qualifications of the person who elicited it.

The final orders included parenting arrangements for the children, property division between the parties, and provisions for costs and the discharge of the Independent Children's Lawyer. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the children's welfare and ensuring a fair and just outcome for both parties.