Bromwich & Bromwich

The case of *Bromwich & Bromwich* concerned an appeal to Justice Kay of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia regarding child support and adult child maintenance orders made by Hughes FM. The husband, the applicant, had refused to participate in the original hearing after his request for an adjournment was denied. The dispute involved the husband's alleged understatement of income for child support purposes and the appropriateness of orders for adult child maintenance for a son undertaking professional tennis training.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Federal Magistrate erred in her findings regarding the husband's income for child support assessments, particularly for a period where an assessment notice was unavailable. Additionally, the court had to determine if the orders for adult child maintenance were still appropriate given new evidence that the son had ceased his training after the hearing but before judgment. The appeal also addressed the husband's challenge to the costs order made against him.

Justice Kay found that while the Federal Magistrate was entitled to conclude the husband had understated his income over several years based on his admissions, she could not make orders for one specific period without the relevant assessment notice. Regarding adult child maintenance, the court accepted that had the Federal Magistrate been aware the son had ceased training, she would not have made the orders she did, thus discharging the obligation from the date training stopped. The appeal against the costs order was allowed in part, with the court directing that costs be assessed on a party-party basis.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part. Orders relating to child support were varied to correct a date for one period and otherwise dismissed. The adult child maintenance order was varied to terminate the obligation earlier than originally ordered. The costs order was set aside and replaced with an order for the husband to pay the wife's costs, with specific exclusions. Both parties were granted costs certificates under the *Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981*.