FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BOND v CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR & ANOR | [2018] FCCA 422 |
| Catchwords: CHILD SUPPORT – Application seeking judicial review of child support decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – question of law – departure order made on basis of financial resource attributable to one parent – financial resource consists of monies paid to parent by his father – sum characterised as a loan by payee and not financial resource – legal error – allegation of breach of principles of natural justice – procedural unfairness – no legal error found – appeal dismissed. |
| Legislation: Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, ss.4, 4(2), 2S, 43(1), pt.6A, 98B, 98C, 117(2) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, ss.44AAA, 33, 66 |
| Cases cited: Humphries & Berry (SSAT Appeal) [2008] FMCA 409 Walker & Fielding (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 320 Henriques & Hatzis (SSAT Appeal) [2014] FCCA 1194 Collector of Customs v Pressure Tankers Pty Ltd and Pozzolanic Enterprise Pty Ltd [1993] 43 FCR 280 Apthorpe v Repatriation Commission (1987) 13 ALD 656 Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 Htun v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2001) 194 ALR 244 LDME & JMA [2007] FMCAfam 712 Child Support Registrar & Crabbe and Anor [2014] FamCAFC 10 Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Al Miahi (2001) 65 ALD 141 Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Ling [1996] 185 CLR 259 S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2003) 216 CLR 473 Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 297 ALR 225 SZUWX v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1389 Hall & Hall [2016] HCA 23 In the marriage of Kelly and Kelly (No 2) (1981) FLC ¶91-108 at 76,803. Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407 | ||
| Applicant: | MR BOND | |
| First Respondent: | CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR |
| Second Respondent: | MS BOND |
| File Number: | ADG 115 of 2017 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Brown |
| Hearing date: | 22 August 2017 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 22 August 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Adelaide |
| Delivered on: | 23 February 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Horvat |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | DW Fox Tucker Lawyers |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr Bishop |
| Counsel for the Second Respondent: | In person |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | Miles Oakley |
ORDERS
The notice of appeal filed on 27 March 2017 is dismissed.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bond v Child Support Registrar & Anor is approved pursuant to s.110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE |
ADG 115 of 2017
| MR BOND |
Applicant
And
| CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR |
First Respondent
| MS BOND |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an appeal, from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal,[1] in respect of a…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bond v Child Support Registrar & Anor 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] FCCA 422
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Registrar's decision was correct and ought to be upheld, or if it should be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
Judge Brown dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Registrar's decision. The Court ordered that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $5,000.00.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The notice of appeal filed on 27 March 2017 is dismissed.
2.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.