Border & Male

This matter concerned an application for leave to appeal a decision of a Federal Magistrate concerning child support. The father, the applicant, contended that a declaration made under Part 6A of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) was merely advisory and did not empower the Registrar to seek the collection of monies payable. The father had previously been unsuccessful in a review of the Registrar's decision and had been denied leave to appeal to the Full Court. He had received a letter from the Child Support Agency warning of potential enforcement action, though no such proceedings had yet commenced.

The legal issues before the court were whether the father had grounds to seek leave to appeal the Federal Magistrate's decision, and whether the Federal Magistrate had erred in making a costs order against him. Specifically, the court considered the father's assertion that the assessment was beyond the Registrar's power and whether declaratory orders should be made in the absence of actual proceedings. The court also examined the basis for the costs order, including the application of section 100 of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act* and section 117 of the *Family Law Act 1975*.

Kay J found no rational basis for the father's claim that the assessment was beyond power, noting that it had previously been determined that there were no grounds to set the assessment aside. The court held that it ought not make declaratory orders in a vacuum, and that the application was doomed to failure. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Regarding the costs order, Kay J found that the Federal Magistrate had the power to make such an order under the relevant legislation, and that the conclusion that it was appropriate for the mother to attend the hearing was sound, despite the father's arguments to the contrary. The appeal against the costs order was also dismissed.