Saidov & Saidov (No 5) - [2025] FedCFamC2F 715

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Saidov & Saidov (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC2F 715

File number(s): CAC 493 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE PARKER

Date of judgment: 23 May 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –application to adjourn application for costs

Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 1.06

Cases cited:

Aon Risk Services v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175

Bulow & Bulow (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 25

Cantwell & Cantwell [2017] FamCAFC 209

Daymond & Daymond (No 2) [2013] FamCA 552

Farrand & Mahdi (No 2) [2021] FamCA 168

Jingyi & Chao (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1F 841

Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1; 189 CLR 146

State of New South Wales v Kable [2013] HCA 26; (2013) 252 CLR 118

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 9

Date of hearing: 23 May 2025

Place: Adelaide

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Pangallo

Solicitor for the Applicant: Eastern Legal

Counsel for the Respondent: Self-Represented

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:

23 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application in a Proceeding filed 21 May 2025 is dismissed.

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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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 s 121(9)(g) 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 clearer and easier to read.
This matter is listed before the Court this day for determination of costs applications brought by the Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (‘ICL’) against the Mother following contested proceedings which were determined by way of orders made and judgment delivered on 16 April 2025. The factual background to this matter is set out in the reasons of 16 April 2025. These reasons should be read in conjunction with the judgment delivered on that date.

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 (No 5) 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] FedCFamC2F 715
Decision Date: 23 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Saidov filed an application for costs against Ms Saidov, his former spouse, in the Family Court. Ms Saidov opposed the application and sought an adjournment. The court was required to decide whether the application for costs should be adjourned and, if so, for what period. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the reasons provided for the adjournment. It determined that the application for costs did not warrant an adjournment as the issues were straightforward and could be resolved without delay. The court held that the application for an adjournment was dismissed. The court's reasoning was based on the need to ensure that family law proceedings are resolved in a timely manner, and that adjournments should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The court made an order dismissing the application for an adjournment of the application for costs.

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:

23 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application in a Proceeding filed 21 May 2025 is dismissed.

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).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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):	CAC 493 of 2020
Judgment of:	JUDGE PARKER
Date of judgment:	23 May 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –application to adjourn application for costs
Legislation:	Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 1.06
Cases cited:	Aon Risk Services v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 Bulow & Bulow (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 25 Cantwell & Cantwell [2017] FamCAFC 209 Daymond & Daymond (No 2) [2013] FamCA 552 Farrand & Mahdi (No 2) [2021] FamCA 168 Jingyi & Chao (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1F 841 Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1; 189 CLR 146 State of New South Wales v Kable [2013] HCA 26; (2013) 252 CLR 118
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	9
Date of hearing:	23 May 2025
Place:	Adelaide
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms Pangallo
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Eastern Legal
Counsel for the Respondent:	Self-Represented
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Ms Fuda
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Comley Legal

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:	23 MAY 2025