Buluma v Child Support Agency

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Buluma v Child Support Agency [2011] FCA 486

Citation:		Buluma v Child Support Agency [2011] FCA 486
Parties:		WILBERFORCE BULUMA v CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
File number:		WAD 186 of 2010
Judge:		SIOPIS J
Date of judgment:		12 May 2011
Date of hearing:	15 December 2010
Date of last submissions:	14 January 2011
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	29
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr PJ Ward
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 186 of 2010

BETWEEN:	WILBERFORCE BULUMA Applicant
AND:	CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 MAY 2011
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application filed on 6 July 2010, is dismissed.

2.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 186 of 2010

BETWEEN:	WILBERFORCE BULUMA Applicant
AND:	CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE:	12 MAY 2011
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND

1. On 6 July 2010, the applicant, Wilberforce Buluma, filed an application in this Court.  Mr Buluma’s application sought the following orders:

   1.I am seeking a stay order suspending liability collection by Child Support Agency pending court outcome.

   2.In the event Child Support Agency owes me money in overcharge as a result of its accounting fraud, my money is to be recovered including interest.

   3.If Child Support Agency wont prove beyond reasonable doubt that it acted within appropriate legislation and procedural instructions and instead engaged in an act of fraud to defraud me, I am seeking $4,000,000 in damages for fraud and defamation under Section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for causing financial hardship, stress and time I’ve spent to peruse huge volumes of paperwork for the last 10 years to uncover fraud.

2. Mr Buluma supported his application with an affidavit which set out his dealings with the respondent, the Child Support Agency (the Agency) since 1994.  The extensive correspondence which forms part of Mr Buluma’s affidavit shows that Mr Buluma has over that time made a number of different complaints to the Agency as to the manner in which it has calculated his child support payments, and other matters.  These complaints have included complaints that the Agency has used different taxable incomes within the same child support period to assess his liability; miscalculated Mr Buluma’s liability on numerous occasions, resulting in inflation and penalisation of overdue amounts and late payments; and intentionally inflated the amount owed in order to defraud Mr Buluma.

3. Mr Buluma also complained that the Agency wrongly intercepted tax refunds to recover past liabilities and sent defamatory communications to Mr Buluma’s employers and his…