Backus and Backus and Anor (SSAT Appeal) (Corrigendum)

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BACKUS & BACKUS & ANOR (SSAT APPEAL) (CORRIGENDUM)

[2011] FMCAfam 516

CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal from the Social Security Appeals Tribunal – whether there was any error of law in the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth); rr.3.05; 25A.06
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth), ss.89; 110B

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), ss.3; 4; 98S;117

Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 162 ALR 1
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang and Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259
Cook v ASP Ship Management [2009] FCAFC 113

Appellant:

MS BACKUS

First Respondent:

MR BACKUS

Second Respondent:

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

File Number:

SYC 311 of 2010

Judgment of:

Emmett FM

Hearing date:

23 May 2011

Date of Last Submission:

23 May 2011

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

23 May 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Appellant:

Ms A Petrie

Solicitors for the Appellant:

Mr S Gray (Hozack Clisdell)

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Mr P White (White & Associates)

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

Mr B D Kaplan

Solicitors for the Second Respondent:

Ms L James (Child Support Agency)

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Backus & Backus & Anor (SSAT Appeal) (Corrigendum) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 311 of 2010

MS BACKUS

Appellant

And

MR BACKUS

First Respondent

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Second Respondent

CORRIGENDUM

The last sentence in [31] of the judgment [2011] FMCAfam 503 of Emmett FM should read as follows:
“There was no adverse finding made against the First Respondent as a result of a failure by the First Respondent to provide adequate financial information to allow it to properly make its decision.” (Emphasis added)
A copy of the judgment [2011] FMCAfam 503 of Emmett FM incorporating the above change, is attached.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the Corrigendum to judgment [2011] FMCAfam 503 of Emmett FM

Deputy Associate:

Date: 25 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia heard an appeal against a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) in the matter of Backus and Backus and Anor. The appellant, Ms Backus, appealed the SSAT’s decision regarding child support, seeking to overturn or alter the tribunal's ruling. The first respondent, Mr Backus, and the second respondent, the Child Support Registrar, were parties to the original decision that Ms Backus sought to appeal. The crux of the appeal was whether the SSAT had erred in law in its decision-making process.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation and application of the relevant legislative provisions, namely the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the SSAT had correctly applied these statutes in its decision and whether there was any procedural or substantive error that warranted the court’s intervention. Ms Backus argued that the SSAT had failed to consider certain financial information that was pertinent to the child support calculation, while Mr Backus and the Child Support Registrar contended that the SSAT had correctly exercised its discretion based on the information available to it at the time.

In delivering the judgment, Emmett FM reviewed the record of the proceedings before the SSAT and the submissions made by both parties. The court found that the SSAT had indeed considered all relevant financial information provided by the parties and had made its decision based on that information. The court emphasised that there was no adverse finding made against Mr Backus due to any failure on his part to provide adequate financial information. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the SSAT's decision. The judgment was corrected to clarify that no adverse finding was made against Mr Backus for the failure to provide financial information.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established