FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Sciacchitano & Zhukov [2024] FedCFamC1A 224
Appeal from: Sciacchitano & Zhukov [2024] FedCFamC2F 1071 Appeal number: NAA 220 of 2024 File number: PAC 1584 of 2022 Judgment of: ALDRIDGE J Date of judgment: 2 December 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Parenting – Where the primary judge found he could not determine what was in the three year old child’s best interest beyond six years of age – Where the primary judge did not fail to consider the prospect of further litigation – Construction of s 65DAAA – Where the orders accord with recommendations from the Court Child Expert such that the parties were on notice – No procedural unfairness – Claims the respondent’s evidence should not have been accepted – Where the outcome is not glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences – Adequate reasons – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 65DAAA Cases cited: Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28
Melounis & Melounis(No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 778
Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28
Rasheem & Rasheem [2024] FedCFamC1F 595
Rice and Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725; [1978] FamCA 84
Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott (2016) 331 ALR 550; [2016] HCA 22
Whitehill & Talaska [2024] FedCFamC2F 768
Number of paragraphs: 35 Date of hearing: 25 November 2024 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Appellant: Mr Connor Solicitor for the Appellant: One Law Group Pty Ltd Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Rebehy Solicitor for the Respondent: Hammond Nguyen Turnbull ORDERS
NAA 220 of 2024
PAC 1584 of 2022FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTIONBETWEEN: MR SCIACCHITANO
Appellant
AND: MS ZHUKOV
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
ALDRIDGE J
DATE OF ORDER:
2 DECEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $15,000 within 28 days.
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 the pseudonym Sciacchitano & Zhukov has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ALDRIDGE J:
Continue reading Sciacchitano & Zhukov
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sciacchitano & Zhukov [2024] FedCFamC1A 224
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC1A 224
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with examining whether the primary judge erred in his consideration of future litigation and the interpretation of section 65DAAA. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was procedural unfairness, whether the appellant's claims about the respondent's evidence were valid, and if the outcome was against compelling inferences. The court found that the primary judge had not failed to consider the prospect of further litigation and provided adequate reasons for his decision. The orders made by the primary judge were in line with the recommendations from the Court Child Expert, ensuring that the parties were aware of the potential outcomes. The court held that the outcome was not glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences, and there was no procedural unfairness.
The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum of $15,000 within 28 days. The form of the order is subject to review and potential variation as per the relevant rules of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the recommendations of experts and ensuring that parties are adequately informed of potential outcomes in parenting disputes.
The court’s reasoning and final orders reflect a balanced approach to the complex considerations inherent in family law matters, particularly those involving young children.
Orders
Orders of the court
NAA 220 of 2024
PAC 1584 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:
MR SCIACCHITANO
Appellant
AND:
MS ZHUKOV
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
ALDRIDGE J
DATE OF ORDER:
2 DECEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $15,000 within 28 days.
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.