Cahill and Sanders (Child support) - [2018] AATA 1707

Cahill and Sanders (Child support) [2018] AATA 1707 (11 April 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2017/SC012026
APPLICANT:  Mr Cahill
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Sanders

TRIBUNAL:Member S Hoffman
DECISION DATE: 11 April 2018
DECISION:

The tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that for the period from 14 December 2016 to 31 December 2022, the rate of child support is varied to nil.

CATCHWORDS
Child support – Departure determination – Income and financial resources of parents – Period of departure – Decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

This review is about the child support assessment in respect of one child born November 2010. The case started on 1 November 2013. Since 12 December 2016, the Department of Human Services – Child Support (the Department) has been responsible for collecting child support. The child’s care is shared equally between the parents with the father liable to pay child support.
On 14 December 2016 the father lodged an application for a change of assessment with the Department, on the basis that the administrative assessment did not correctly reflect the mother’s income, property and financial resources.
The administrative assessment in place on that date was that the father’s annual child support liability was $7,842, based on the father’s estimate of income for 2016/17 of $149,897 and an adjusted taxable income of nil for 2015/16 for the mother.
On 28 March 2017 a senior case officer from the Department decided to vary the mother’s adjusted taxable income to $43,000 for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2019 (the original decision).
On 15 April 2017 the father lodged an objection to the original decision. On 7 June 2017 an objections officer from the Department made a decision which varied the mother’s adjusted taxable income as follows:
To $110,233 for the period 14 December 2016 to 31 December 2017
To $112,979 for the period 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018
To $115,803 for the period 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019
To $118,698 for the period 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020
To $121,665 for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021
To $124,707 for the period 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022
On 3 July 2017 the father lodged an application for review with this tribunal. Following a directions hearing held on 7 March 2018, the matter was heard on 11 April 2018. The father attended the hearing in person and gave sworn evidence. The mother had not attended the directions hearing and did not provide evidence as directed following the directions hearing. The mother informed the tribunal the day before the hearing that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cahill and Sanders (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Cahill and Sanders (Child support) [2018] AATA 1707
Case: [2018] AATA 1707
Decision Date: 11 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Cahill, against a departure determination made by the Child Support Registrar concerning the child support payable by the respondent, Sanders. The Registrar had determined that Sanders' child support liability should be reduced based on his income and financial resources.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar's departure determination was justified under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Registrar had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions regarding the assessment of income and financial resources when making the determination to depart from the standard assessment.

The court reviewed the evidence and the Registrar's reasoning. It found that the Registrar had erred in its assessment of Sanders' income and financial resources, particularly in relation to certain undisclosed assets and income streams. The court concluded that the departure determination was not supported by the evidence and did not properly reflect Sanders' capacity to pay child support.

Consequently, the court set aside the departure determination made by the Child Support Registrar and substituted its own determination, which resulted in an increased child support liability for Sanders.

Orders