Aspen & Selby

This matter concerned an appeal and a cross-appeal before Boland J. The husband sought leave to appeal a decision of a Federal Magistrate concerning an application to depart from an administrative assessment of child support. The wife sought leave to cross-appeal a costs order made by the same Federal Magistrate.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Federal Magistrate had erred in principle by failing to give adequate reasons for rejecting the grounds for departure from the child support assessment, whether the Magistrate had made errors in factual findings that vitiated the exercise of discretion, and whether the Magistrate had failed to consider the special circumstances of the case when determining that the level of child support was not unjust or inequitable. In relation to the cross-appeal, the issues were whether the Federal Magistrate had erred in principle in determining the costs application, whether the wife had been denied natural justice, and whether the Magistrate had incorrectly taken the wife's conduct into account when making the costs order.

Boland J found that an error of law had been established in relation to the child support assessment. Consequently, the husband's appeal was allowed. The court also granted the wife leave to cross-appeal and allowed her cross-appeal, finding that the Federal Magistrate had committed an error of principle in the costs determination, potentially denying the wife natural justice and incorrectly considering her conduct.

The court ordered that the husband's application for departure and the wife's response be listed for re-hearing before a different Federal Magistrate. Both parties were granted costs certificates under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) in respect of the appeal, the cross-appeal, and the new trial.