Bai and Reddy (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Bai for a departure determination regarding child support payable to Ms Reddy. Mr Bai contended that the expenses claimed by Ms Reddy in relation to her rental income were excessive, and that the overall impact of her investment property on her income was unusual. The tribunal considered the evidence regarding Ms Reddy's rental property expenses, noting that the primary expense was mortgage interest and that there were no unusual or unexplained costs. The tribunal also observed that depreciation was a "paper" expense and that there was no evidence of funds being set aside for replacement of depreciated items.

The legal issues before the tribunal were whether there were special circumstances to depart from the administrative assessment of child support, specifically in relation to the income, property, and financial resources of both parents. The tribunal was required to consider the impact of Ms Reddy's rental property expenses and her income, as well as the special needs of the older child and childcare expenses incurred by Ms Reddy. Additionally, the tribunal examined Mr Bai's claim regarding his necessary commitments for self-support, which related to legal expenses.

The tribunal reasoned that while Ms Reddy's adjusted taxable income for the period 23 August 2018 to 31 May 2019 was lower than her current income due to a period of maternity leave, the overall impact on the child support assessment was approximately $1,000 per annum. Regarding the special needs of the older child, the tribunal found the expenses incurred were not of sufficient magnitude to warrant a departure. Similarly, while childcare expenses might have met the 5% threshold by a small margin, Ms Reddy had benefited from being assessed on a lower income. The tribunal also concluded that the legal expenses incurred by Mr Bai were not a necessary commitment for self-support, as both parties were incurring such costs. Consequently, the tribunal was not persuaded that special circumstances existed to depart from the administrative assessment on any of the grounds considered.

The tribunal decided not to depart from the administrative assessment of child support. As this decision was consistent with the Registrar's prior decision, the tribunal affirmed the decision under review.