AEL24 v Child Support Registrar (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

AEL24 v Child Support Registrar (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1619

File number(s): BRG 18 of 2024
Judgment of: JUDGE L. TURNER
Date of judgment: 7 October 2025
Catchwords: CHILD SUPPORT – Costs - where the appeal was dismissed - where the Child Support Registrar is seeking costs in respect to the failed appeal - held that the respondent pay to the Child Support Registrar costs in the sum of $7,543
Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s. 214

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)

Cases cited:  Paxton & Child Support Registrar (Cost) [2016] FAMCACF 158
Richards v Han (Costs) [2023] FCA 211
Ritter v Godfrey [1918-19] All ER Rep 714
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 19
Date of last submission/s: 19 August 2025
Date of hearing: 25 July 2025
Place: Brisbane
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Chan, Sparke Helmore
For the First Respondent: The First Respondent appeared in person
For the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent did not appear
For the Third Respondent: The Third Respondent did not appear

ORDERS

BRG 18 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Applicant
AND:

AEL24

First Respondent

BUZ24

Second Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE L. TURNER

DATE OF ORDER:

7 OCTOBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Within three (3) months from the date hereof the respondent (AEL24) pay to the applicant (the Child Support Registrar) as directed by the applicant (the Child Support Registrar) the sum of $7,543 for costs thrown away as a result of Notice of Appeal filed on 11 January 2024 which was subsequently dismissed on 25 July 2025.

2.Otherwise all outstanding applications are hereby dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. On 25 July 2025, orders were made for the Notice of Appeal filed by the respondent (AEL24) on 11 January 2024 to be dismissed.

  2. Directions were made for the filing of submissions as to costs incurred by the applicant (Child Support Registrar).

    PROPOSALS

  3. The applicant is seeking a costs order against the respondent in the sum of $7,543.

  4. The respondent is seeking that no costs be paid by the respondent to the applicant.

  5. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the third respondent named in the Notice of Appeal) did not provide any written submissions as to the costs being sought by the applicant and informed the court that…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AEL24 v Child Support Registrar (No 2) 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] FedCFamC2G 1619
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AEL24 v Child Support Registrar (No 2) involved the Child Support Registrar seeking costs from the respondent, AEL24, following a failed appeal. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The Registrar argued that AEL24 should pay costs due to the unsuccessful nature of the appeal and previous warnings that costs would be sought if the appeal failed.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the court's jurisdiction to award costs in an appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded. The court considered whether the appeal was a proceeding brought under child support legislation, which would exclude it from the court's power to award costs. It also had to determine the appropriate amount of costs given the fixed costs scale provided by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021.

The court found that the appeal was not a child support proceeding but rather a tribunal appeal, thereby granting the court jurisdiction to award costs under section 214(2) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021. The court upheld the principle that costs should follow the event and that the Child Support Registrar, funded by the public purse, should not bear the costs of defending against unreasonable attacks. Consequently, the court ordered AEL24 to pay $7,543 to the Child Support Registrar as costs for the unsuccessful appeal. The court also granted AEL24 a three-month period to pay the costs, considering his submission about financial hardship.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The issues for determination are whether a cost order should be made against the respondent in favour of the applicant and if so the amount of costs payable to the applicant.EVIDENCE In considering this issue regard has been had to the written submissions of the parties and the relevant jurisdiction. Findings of fact are made on the balance of probabilities having regard to the evidence and in what follows statements of fact constitute findings of fact. Before considering the issues, regard must be had to the law.THE LAW Section 214(2) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 empowers the court to award costs in any proceedings brought before the court, except for those matters that are specifically excluded pursuant to section 214(1). Whilst section 214(1) states that section 214(2) does not apply to child support proceedings, an appeal to the court from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, I find, is not a court proceeding commenced under any child support legislation, but a proceeding brought pursuant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction to make a costs order in respect to appeal proceedings pursuant to section 214(2).ARE COSTS PAYABLE BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT? It is a well-established rule that in civil matters costs follow the event as discussed in Ritter v Godfrey [1918-19] All ER Rep 714 at 721 and Richards v Han (Costs) [2023] FCA 211 at [9]. It is further a well-established principle, as articulated by the Full Court in Paxton & Child Support Registrar (Cost) [2016] FAMCACF 158 at [29] that the Child Support Registrar:Funded… by the public purse, ought not to have to bear the costs of reasonably defending (their) position against an unreasonable attack I find having considered the evidence in this matter that it is appropriate for a costs order to be made against the respondent in favour of the applicant as the respondent was wholly unsuccessful in the appeal and the respondent had been previously made aware by the applicant that in the event the respondent was unsuccessful in the appeal then costs would be sought.WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF COSTS PAYABLE BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT? The applicant is seeking fixed costs in the sum of $7,543 which is the scale amount as provided for in Schedule 2, Part 1 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021. The amount of costs or the method of calculation was not disputed by the respondent. I find that this is an appropriate amount of costs and order that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $7,543 by way of costs thrown away in respect to the respondent’s failed appeal. As the respondent in his written submissions addressed the issues of financial hardship then the respondent has been given three months in which to pay the costs.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.