FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Saidov & Saidov (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC2F 721
File number(s): CAC 493 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE PARKER Date of judgment: 23 May 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – COSTS – applications for costs by Father and Independent Children’s Lawyer following determination of parenting and financial proceedings Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 95, 117
Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 190, 191, 191A
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), schedule 1
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 1.04, Part 6.1, rr 8.15(3)(e), 15.15
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Central Practice Direction – Family Law Case Management
Cases cited: Briese & Briese [1985] FamCA 23; (1986) FLC ¶91-713
CDJ & VAJ (No 2) [1998] HCA 76; (1998) 197 CLR 172
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 801
D & D (Costs) No 2 [2010] FamCAFC 64; (2010) FLC ¶93-435
Daines & Daines (Costs) [2014] FamCAFC 170
Davis & Peterson [2023] FedCFamC1A 13; (2023) FLC ¶94-130
Harris & Harris [1991] FamCA 124; (1991) FLC ¶92-254
Jensen & Jensen [1982] FamCA 57; (1982) FLC ¶91-263
Kohan & Kohan [1992] FamCA 116; (1993) FLC ¶92-340
Lenova & Lenova (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 141
Lyris & Hatziantoniou [1998] FamCA 1311; (1999) FLC ¶92-840
McDonald & McDonald [1994] FamCA 110; (1994) FLC ¶92-508
Menz & Menz [1980] FamCA 29; (1980) FLC ¶90-852
Munday & Bowman (1997) FLC ¶92-784
Nada & Nettle (Costs) [2014] FamCAFC 207; (2014) FLC ¶93-612
Oriolo & Oriolo [1985] FamCA 54; (1985) FLC ¶91-653
Penfold & Penfold [1980] HCA 4; (1980) 144 CLR 311
Pennisi & Pennisi [1997] FamCA 39; (1997) FLC ¶92-774
Re David (No 2) (Costs) [1998] FamCA 40; (1998) FLC ¶92-809
Re P (A Child) [1993] FamCA 40; (1993) FLC ¶92-376
Saidov & Saidov (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2F 226
Saidov & Saidov (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC2F 495
Saidov & Saidov (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC2F 715
Roydon & Roydon [2024] FedCFamC1A 105
S & S [1997] FamCA 19; (1997) FLC ¶92-762
Stephens & Stephens & Anor (Enforcement) (Costs) [2010] FamCAFC 172
Telfer & Telfer [1996] FamCA 26; (1996) FLC ¶92-688
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 99 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 Mother pay to the Father costs in the sum of $97,011.63, such sum…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Saidov & Saidov (No 6) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC2F 721
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the assessment of costs in family law proceedings and the application of the relevant statutory provisions and case law. The court considered the principles governing costs orders in family law cases, the nature and extent of the services provided by the parties' legal representatives, and the financial circumstances of the parties. The court also had to determine the appropriate forum for the payment of the awarded costs, considering the prior orders already in place between the parties. The court was required to balance the need for just and equitable outcomes with the overarching objective of promoting the welfare of the children involved in the proceedings.
The court held that the amount of costs awarded to the father should be offset against the financial orders already made between the parties. The court found that the costs claimed by the father's solicitor were reasonable and necessary, and awarded the full amount claimed, subject to the offset against the prior financial orders. Regarding the costs claimed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the court found that the amount claimed was reasonable and necessary, and ordered the mother to pay this amount directly to the lawyer. The court also directed that the father's solicitor was to transfer the sum awarded to the Independent Children’s Lawyer from the funds payable by the father to the mother, prior to making any further payments to the mother under the prior financial orders. The court dismissed all other applications for costs.
In summary, the court ordered that the mother pay costs to the father in the sum of $97,011.63, to be offset against prior financial orders. The mother was also ordered to pay costs to the Independent Children’s Lawyer in the sum of $11,673.70. The father's solicitor was directed to transfer the sum awarded to the Independent Children’s Lawyer from the funds payable to the mother, before making any further payments under the prior financial orders. All other applications for costs were dismissed.
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 Mother pay to the Father costs in the sum of $97,011.63, such sum to be offset against the amount to be paid by the Father to the Mother pursuant order 15 of the orders made on 16 April 2025.
2. The Mother pay to the Independent Children’s Lawyer costs in the sum of $11,673.70.
3. The Father’s solicitor transfer to the Independent Children’s Lawyer the sum provided for at order 2 hereof from the funds payable by the Father pursuant to order 15 of the orders of 16 April 2025 prior to payment to the Mother of the balance of the funds payable to her pursuant to order 19 of the orders made 16 April 2025 (as adjusted by order 1 hereof).
4. All extant applications are otherwise 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.