Legal Research
Cases
Traversi & Vinogradov

Traversi & Vinogradov

Case [2025] FedCFamC1A 93 23 May 2025

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Traversi & Vinogradov [2025] FedCFamC1A 93

Appeal from: Vinogradov & Traversi [2024] FedCFamC2F 1770

Appeal number: NAA 27 of 2025

File number: NCC 2366 of 2022

Judgment of: ALDRIDGE J

Date of judgment: 23 May 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal from orders permitting the respondent to relocate the child’s residence to the USA – Where the primary judge did not overlook the close relationship with the appellant or his ability to care for the child – Where the primary judge’s conclusions are supported by the reasons – Adequacy of reasons – No error established – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum.

Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Sch 3

Cases cited:
Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621; [1953] HCA 25

Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191; [1990] FamCA 148

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22

GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore (2023) 414 ALR 635; [2023] HCA 32

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Pacotto & Galvin [2025] FedCFamC1A 27

Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110

Rochford & Fitzhugh [2019] FamCAFC 218

Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48

Number of paragraphs: 64

Date of hearing: 8 May 2025

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr Todd

Solicitor for the Appellant: Jones Hardy Law

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Moon

Solicitor for the Respondent: Conditsis Lawyers

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Adams & Partners Lawyers
ORDERS

NAA 27 of 2025
NCC 2366 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:
MR TRAVERSI

Appellant

AND:
MS VINOGRADOV

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the costs of the respondent fixed in the sum of $14,000 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 Traversi & Vinogradov has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975

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.

Continue reading Traversi & Vinogradov

Details

AGLC: Traversi & Vinogradov [2025] FedCFamC1A 93
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1A 93
Decision Date: 23 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, in its appellate jurisdiction, heard an appeal by Mr Traversi against orders that permitted Ms Vinogradov to relocate the child’s residence to the USA. The primary judge had determined that it was in the best interests of the child to relocate, a decision which Mr Traversi contested. The appeal focused on the adequacy of the reasons provided by the primary judge and whether the relocation decision was justified.

The court examined whether the primary judge had overlooked the close relationship between the appellant and the child or his capacity to care for the child. It was established that the primary judge’s conclusions were well-supported by the reasons provided, and the court found no error in the decision-making process. The appellant's argument that the primary judge failed to adequately consider his relationship with the child and his caregiving abilities was dismissed as unfounded. The court concluded that the primary judge’s reasons were thorough and sufficient, reflecting a comprehensive consideration of the child's best interests.

In light of the findings, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum of $14,000 within 28 days. The court’s decision emphasized the importance of the primary judge’s assessment of the child's best interests and the relocation decision's alignment with statutory objectives. The final orders reflect the court's affirmation of the primary judge’s determination, ensuring the child’s welfare remains the paramount consideration in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 27 of 2025

NCC 2366 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR TRAVERSI

Appellant

AND:

MS VINOGRADOV

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent fixed in the sum of $14,000 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Traversi & Vinogradov [2025] FedCFamC1A 93

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Pacotto & Galvin
[2025] FedCFamC1A 27 Para 10

…different conclusion. In such cases, two different judges might reasonably come to opposite conclusions based on the same evidence ( Pacotto & Galvin [2025] FedCFamC1A 27 at [30]).…
Vinogradov & Traversi
[2024] FedCFamC2F 1770

…RCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION Traversi & Vinogradov [2025] FedCFamC1A 93 Appeal from: Vinogradov & Traversi [2024] FedCFamC2F 1770 Appeal number: NAA 27 of 2025 File number: NCC 2366 of 2022 Judgment of: ALDRIDGE J Date of judgment: 23 May 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – P…
GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore
[2023] HCA 32

…) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore (2023) 414 ALR 635; [2023] HCA 32 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Pacotto & Galvin [2025] FedCFamC1A 27 Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110 Rochford & Fitzhugh [2019] FamCAFC 2…
Rochford & Fitzhugh
[2019] FamCAFC 218 Para 16

…rs, that there may still be an adequate or sufficient relationship even though that may fall short of an optimal relationship ( Rochford & Fitzhugh [2019] FamCAFC 218 at [23], [38] and [41]).…
Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd
[2009] NSWCA 110 Para 17

…The adequacy of reasons will depend on the circumstances of the case ( Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110 at [57]–[59]). Reasons will be inadequate where it is not apparent how the decision was reached, upon what evidence the decision was reached, or the pathway that led to a stated conclusion ( Ben…
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon
[2003] HCA 48

…RR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110 Rochford & Fitzhugh [2019] FamCAFC 218 Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48 Number of paragraphs: 64 Date of hearing: 8 May 2025 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Appellant: Mr Todd Solicitor for the Appellant: Jones Hardy Law Counsel for the Respondent:…
Fox v Percy
[2003] HCA 22

…th (1953) 94 CLR 621; [1953] HCA 25 Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191; [1990] FamCA 148 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore (2023) 414 ALR 635; [2023] HCA 32 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Pacotto & Galvin…
Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth
[1953] HCA 25

…) Rules 2021 (Cth) Sch 3 Cases cited: Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621; [1953] HCA 25 Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191; [1990] FamCA 148 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismor…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40

…the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore (2023) 414 ALR 635; [2023] HCA 32 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Pacotto & Galvin [2025] FedCFamC1A 27 Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110 Rochford & Fitzhugh [2019] FamCAFC 218 Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2…
Bennett and Bennett
[1990] FAMCA 148

…and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621; [1953] HCA 25 Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191; [1990] FamCA 148 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore (2023) 414 ALR 635; [2023] HCA 32 House v The King (19…
House v The King
63 WN 176 Para 8

…The appeal is from a discretionary decision so the following principles from House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 (“ House v The King ”) (at 504–505) will apply: …The manner in which an appeal against an exercise of discretion should be determined is governed by established principles. It is not enough that the judges compo…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
1 mention

NAA 27 of 2025 NCC 2366 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:	MR TRAVERSI Appellant
AND:	MS VINOGRADOV Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

Appeal from:	Vinogradov & Traversi [2024] FedCFamC2F 1770
Appeal number:	NAA 27 of 2025
File number:	NCC 2366 of 2022
Judgment of:	ALDRIDGE J
Date of judgment:	23 May 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Appeal from orders permitting the respondent to relocate the child’s residence to the USA – Where the primary judge did not overlook the close relationship with the appellant or his ability to care for the child – Where the primary judge’s conclusions are supported by the reasons – Adequacy of reasons – No error established – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in a fixed sum.
Legislation:	Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Sch 3
Cases cited:	Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621; [1953] HCA 25 Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191; [1990] FamCA 148 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore (2023) 414 ALR 635; [2023] HCA 32 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Pacotto & Galvin [2025] FedCFamC1A 27 Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110 Rochford & Fitzhugh [2019] FamCAFC 218 Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 200 ALR 447; [2003] HCA 48
Number of paragraphs:	64
Date of hearing:	8 May 2025
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr Todd
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Jones Hardy Law
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Moon
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Conditsis Lawyers
Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Adams & Partners Lawyers

ORDER MADE BY:	ALDRIDGE J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 MAY 2025