Agrippa and Horton and Anor (SSAT Appeal)
[2011] FMCAfam 226
•15 March 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| AGRIPPA & HORTON & ANOR (SSAT APPEAL) | [2011] FMCAfam 226 |
| CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal in respect of decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal – whether the Social Security Appeals Tribunal’s decision was affected by an error of law. |
| Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth);ss.81, 83, 110B,110D, Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r.11 |
| Applicant: | MR AGRIPPA |
| First Respondent: | MS HORTON |
| Second Respondent: | CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR |
| File Number: | SYC 999 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | Emmett FM |
| Hearing date: | 15 March 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 15 March 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 15 March 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant appeared in person |
| First Respondent appeared in person |
| Solicitors for the Second Respondent: | Ms Nanson (AGS) |
IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of Federal Magistrate Emmett delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Agrippa & Horton & Anor (SSAT Appeal).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC 999 of 2011
| MR AGRIPPA |
Applicant
And
| MS HORTON |
First Respondent
| CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 21 February 2011 in respect of a decision of the Social Securities Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 18 January 2011.
The ground of the appeal is expressed as follows:
“The Tribunal has erred in determining my imputed income by including annual factory rental income and dividend income as well as deposits into my mortgage offset account which included annual factory rental income and dividend income, thus counting annual factory rental income and dividend income twice.”
The ground was not accompanied by any further particulars.
Mr Agrippa represented himself before the Court this morning and was invited to say whatever he wished via seeking to identify an error of law in the decision of the Tribunal.
There was a Legal Aid solicitor present before the Court and Mr Agrippa was given an opportunity to meet with that Legal Aid solicitor.
On return, Mr Agrippa made submissions about information or material that, in his view, was before the Tribunal, and that would have made clear that in fact there were certain deposits made that the Tribunal counted twice in assessing his rental income.
The solicitor for the Child Support Registrar, Ms Nanson, submitted to the Court that there was no error of law identified in the Notice of Appeal and referred the Court to two passages in particular in the Tribunal’s decision, both of which I refer to below:
“46. There is once again a notable dearth of documentation provided by Mr. Agrippa to support the various assertions he makes about his financial affairs. He has once again failed to fully comply with a direction to provide additional documentation, issued by the Tribunal on 18 November 2010. Similarly Ms Horton did not provide up to date evidence as to her current earnings.”
“62. Mr Agrippa had stated to the Federal Magistrate that his rental income was deposited into the mortgage offset account, but could not identify any deposits into that account which equated to the rental received for either property. He had stated that he collected the rents in cash and only deposited that part of the renal which he had not already expended. On this evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the deposits into the mortgage offset account necessarily represented his rental income.”
Those paragraphs make quite clear that the Tribunal considered the issue raised by Mr Agrippa in the ground of his appeal. They also makes clear that the Tribunal found itself hampered by what it described as a “notable dearth of documentation” provided by Mr Agrippa in respect of his financial affairs. It further noted that he had failed to fully comply with the direction to provide additional documentation issued by the Tribunal on 18 November 2010.
Mr Agrippa submitted to the Court this morning that he had papers to show that, in a transcript before the Child Support Registrar, these matters were made clear. That, by itself, does not demonstrate an error of law in the Tribunal’s decision.
In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the ground of appeal identified by Mr Agrippa in his notice of appeal has any or any reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, the notice of appeal should be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Emmett FM
Date: 24 March 2011
0
0
2