Amo25 v Administrative Review Tribunal

Link copied
Case Copied 26 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AMO25 v Administrative Review Tribunal [2025] FCA 365

Review of: AMO25 v Child Support Registrar (Administrative Review Tribunal, No 2024/BC027893, 11 October 2024)
File number: QUD 12 of 2025
Judgment of: WHEATLEY J
Date of judgment: 12 March 2025
Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeal from Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal) under s 172 of Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) in relation to assessment of child support under Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) – whether Tribunal made error of law – whether Tribunal applied the correct statutory construction – Where decision of the President of the Tribunal refusing referral to the Guidance and Appeals Panel – appeal allowed

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE — Where s 117(2)(b)(ii) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) allows for variation of child support payment assessments when a child is not educated in a manner expected by his or her parents – Whether that expectation by the parents required agreement – Where the Applicant appealed against the decision of the Tribunal for an error of law

Legislation:

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ss 121, 128, 129, 170, 172, 174

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) s 117

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 33.12
Cases cited:

Beklar v Beklar [2013] FamCA 327

Warwick v Cutler [2016] FamCA 934

Mabry v Mabry (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 388

Division: General Division
Registry: Queensland
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 52
Date of hearing: 12 March 2025
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent filed a submitting notice of appearance, save as to costs
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Ms L Helsdon of Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Counsel for the Third Respondent: The Third Respondent appeared in person

ORDERS

QUD 12 of 2025
BETWEEN:

AMO25

Applicant
AND:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Second Respondent

AMP25

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

WHEATLEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be allowed.

2.The decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal dated 25 October 2024 be set aside.

3.The proceeding be remitted to the Administrative Review Tribunal for reconsideration according to law.

4.By 4:00 pm on 17 March 2025, the Applicant is to file and serve on the Third Respondent any application for costs together with any affidavits in support and an outline of submissions limited to three pages in length.

5.By 4:00 pm on 24 March 2025, the Third Respondent is to file and serve on the Applicant any affidavits in response and any outline of submissions in response limited to three pages in length.

6.Final orders as to costs will be determined on the papers without a further oral hearing.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)

WHEATLEY J:

INTRODUCTION

  1. The Applicant, who is referred to in these proceedings…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Amo25 v Administrative Review Tribunal 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] FCA 365
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Amo25 v Administrative Review Tribunal involved the Third Respondent, AMP25, who contested the decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal concerning the assessment of child support payments under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth). The Third Respondent appealed against the Tribunal's decision not to refer the matter to the Guidance and Appeals Panel, arguing that the Tribunal had made an error of law in its assessment of child support payments, particularly regarding the variation of payments when a child was not educated in a manner expected by their parents. The Third Respondent further contended that the Tribunal failed to apply the correct statutory construction and did not adequately address the issues raised by the Applicant.

The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal had indeed made an error of law in its decision-making process and whether it had correctly interpreted the relevant statutory provisions. This included assessing whether the Tribunal properly considered the statutory criteria for varying child support payments, specifically whether the parents' expectation of their child's education required their agreement. The court also needed to consider the appropriate standard of review for the Tribunal's decision and whether the President's refusal to refer the matter to the Guidance and Appeals Panel was justified.

The court found that the Tribunal had indeed made an error of law in its assessment and decision-making process. It was determined that the Tribunal had not properly applied the statutory criteria for varying child support payments and had failed to adequately consider the relevant expectations of the parents concerning their child's education. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was flawed and did not reflect the correct application of the law. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal dated 25 October 2024 was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to law.

In conclusion, the court issued orders allowing the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decision, and remitting the matter back for reconsideration. The Applicant was required to file and serve an application for costs by a specified date, followed by the Third Respondent's response. Final orders regarding costs were to be determined on the papers without a further oral hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal dated 25 October 2024 be set aside.

3. The proceeding be remitted to the Administrative Review Tribunal for reconsideration according to law.

4. By 4:00 pm on 17 March 2025, the Applicant is to file and serve on the Third Respondent any application for costs together with any affidavits in support and an outline of submissions limited to three pages in length.

5. By 4:00 pm on 24 March 2025, the Third Respondent is to file and serve on the Applicant any affidavits in response and any outline of submissions in response limited to three pages in length.

6. Final orders as to costs will be determined on the papers without a further oral hearing.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

The Third Respondent, AMP25, did not agree or consent to the Draft Orders. The Third Respondent relied on the decision of the President of the Tribunal refusing to refer the proceedings to the Guidance and Appeals Panel, which was dated 6 December 2024 (President’s Decision), and submitted that this Court should follow the President’s Decision. As such, it seemed appropriate to deal with this matter in effectively a summary way. The parties all agreed to this process. The Court provided the Third Respondent with an opportunity to put on written submissions as to why the Draft Orders should not be made. An opportunity was also provided to the Second Respondent and the Applicant to put on written submissions in response and as to why the Draft Orders should be made. The matter was relisted today, 12 March 2025, for further argument. The parties have made further submissions orally today, which I have considered, together with the written submissions, the Decision and the President’s Decision.CONSIDERATIONSubmissions of the Third Respondent The Third Respondent outlined the background to the Decision of the Tribunal, including by way of a reference to the first decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning Child 1 made in February of 2020. This was together with a second decision made upon Child 2 and Child 3 commencing at the same school, being School 1, which was made on 29 January 2021. The Third Respondent referred to what was described as “an original change of assessment” dated 8 March 2024. The Third Respondent provided further details about these decisions, however, it is sufficient to observe that implicit in this submission is that the Third Respondent was dissatisfied with the process and with the decisions. The result of this decision was an increase to the amount of child support payable referable to Child 1 attending School 2, which was more expensive. On 1 April 2024, the Third Respondent submitted an objection to this child support decision dated 8 March 2024. The Third Respondent outlined the effect of that objection and submitted that that decision by child support, dated 3 May 2024, was significant as it was the decision which was the subject of the application currently before the court. In short, it appears that the child support review decision reduced the amount of the annual rate of child support effectively to reflect half of the school fees payable should all three children remain at School 1. On 7 May 2024, the Applicant AMO25 applied to the AAT for review. The Third Respondent refers to the Decision, which did not change the child support review decision. On 4 November 2024, the Applicant applied to the President, seeking that the matter be referred to the Guidance and Appeals Panel. The Third Respondent also expressly refers to s 121 of the Act and I will come back to the terms of that section in due course. The Third Respondent sets out the grounds, which are described as the grounds of appeal to the Guidance and Appeals Panel, in those submissions: 28. The grounds for appeal to the GAP were:a.That the Member made an error of law by not granting the outcome the applicant sought in the change of assessment application.b.That the Member failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision in not ruling in favour of the Applicant.c.That the member allowed extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect her decision leading to errors of law and fact.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The matter was relisted today, 12 March 2025, for further argument. The parties have made further submissions orally today, which I have considered, together with the written submissions, the Decision and the President’s Decision.CONSIDERATIONSubmissions of the Third Respondent The Third Respondent outlined the background to the Decision of the Tribunal, including by way of a reference to the first decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning Child 1 made in February of 2020. This was together with a second decision made upon Child 2 and Child 3 commencing at the same school, being School 1, which was made on 29 January 2021. The Third Respondent referred to what was described as “an original change of assessment” dated 8 March 2024. The Third Respondent provided further details about these decisions, however, it is sufficient to observe that implicit in this submission is that the Third Respondent was dissatisfied with the process and with the decisions. The result of this decision was an increase to the amount of child support payable referable to Child 1 attending School 2, which was more expensive. On 1 April 2024, the Third Respondent submitted an objection to this child support decision dated 8 March 2024. The Third Respondent outlined the effect of that objection and submitted that that decision by child support, dated 3 May 2024, was significant as it was the decision which was the subject of the application currently before the court. In short, it appears that the child support review decision reduced the amount of the annual rate of child support effectively to reflect half of the school fees payable should all three children remain at School 1. On 7 May 2024, the Applicant AMO25 applied to the AAT for review. The Third Respondent refers to the Decision, which did not change the child support review decision. On 4 November 2024, the Applicant applied to the President, seeking that the matter be referred to the Guidance and Appeals Panel. The Third Respondent also expressly refers to s 121 of the Act and I will come back to the terms of that section in due course. The Third Respondent sets out the grounds, which are described as the grounds of appeal to the Guidance and Appeals Panel, in those submissions: 28. The grounds for appeal to the GAP were:a.That the Member made an error of law by not granting the outcome the applicant sought in the change of assessment application.b.That the Member failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision in not ruling in favour of the Applicant.c.That the member allowed extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect her decision leading to errors of law and fact. The Third Respondent submitted, contrary to the Applicant’s position, that because the Guidance and Appeals Panel decision is not ordinarily published, that should not detract from the President’s consideration of these proceedings. Particularly, so it was submitted, that the President’s Decision was to dismiss the Applicant’s request for an oral hearing and dealt with the matter on the papers.