Bozic v Bozic

[2007] HCATrans 563

[2007] HCATrans 563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M29 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

ZORAN BOZIC

Applicant

and

DANICA BOZIC

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 3 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.30 AM  

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant and the respondent were divorced on 26 May 1999.  The children remained in the care of the respondent following the separation.  Bennett FM gave an ex tempore interim decision on 16 November 2005 adjusting the applicant's administrative assessment for child support, finding that he had understated his income.  The orders of Bennett FM were appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court.  The Full Court allowed the appeal in part on the basis that the applicant had been denied procedural fairness and remitted for further hearing the application to the Federal Magistrates Court for a departure from the administrative assessment of child support.

Proceedings continued in that Court after the applicant voluntarily absented himself.  Hughes FM stated that she was satisfied that the applicant had deliberately understated his income for the purpose of assessment by the Child Support Agency.  On 7 August 2006 her Honour made orders adjusting the rate of child support.

The applicant appealed the decision of Hughes FM in the Family Court.  Kay J found that the allegations of procedural unfairness were not made out.  His Honour stated that he was not in a position to find that it was not open to the Federal Magistrate to find the understatement.  However, insofar as Hughes FM made an order for a particular period absent a notice of assessment, she fell into error.  The applicant was refused leave to file further evidence, with an exception for certain evidence relating to the eldest child's vocational training.  Kay J accordingly ordered that the obligation to pay maintenance for the eldest child cease by the end of July 2006.

The application raises no questions of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal to this Court.  The Federal Magistrate was entitled to draw the inference that the applicant had understated his income.  The applicant does not identify any substantive issue raised before Kay J that his Honour did not consider.  There are insufficient prospects of success in this Court to warrant a grant of special leave.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kiefel and myself.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED