Bambra and Hueffer (Child support)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Bambra (the applicant) to set aside a child support assessment made by the Child Support Registrar. The dispute concerned whether a fixed annual rate of child support should apply, with the applicant arguing that it would be unjust and inequitable to do so. Hueffer (the respondent) was the other party to the child support assessment.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the circumstances of the case were such that it would be unjust and inequitable to make an administrative assessment of child support in a fixed annual rate, pursuant to section 117 of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had discharged the onus of proving that the existing assessment should not apply.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal applied the principles of section 117 of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth), which allows for departure from a fixed annual rate assessment if it would be unjust and inequitable. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by the applicant and found that it did not establish that the fixed annual rate assessment was unjust or inequitable. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not demonstrated any significant change in circumstances or other factors that would warrant departing from the established assessment.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Child Support Registrar and refused the applicant's application for the fixed annual rate of child support not to apply.