CALDRON & EADLER - [2020] FCCA 1818

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CALDRON & EADLER

[2020] FCCA 1818

Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Application to suspend child support order made ex parte in Country B – applicant seeking revised assessment calculated in accordance with Australian legislation – consideration of Court’s power given reciprocal legislation – orders made in accordance with submissions of the Child Support Registrar.

Cases cited:

Child Support Registrar & Higgins & Anor [2016] FamCAFC 2

Applicant:

MR CALDRON

Respondent:

MS EADLER

Amicus Curiae:

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

File Number:

DGC 51 of 2020

Judgment of:

Judge Burchardt

Hearing date:

3 July 2020

Date of Last Submission:

3 July 2020

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

7 July 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Self-represented

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Not applicable

Counsel for the Respondent:

No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondent:	Not applicable
Counsel for the Child Support Registrar:	Mr Bishop
Solicitors for the Child Support Registrar:	Mills Oakley

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Caldron & Eadler is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

DGC 51 of 2020

MR CALDRON

Applicant

And

MS EADLER

Respondent

And

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Amicus Curiae

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introductory

On 9 January 2020, the applicant Mr Caldron filed an Initiating Application seeking a variation order relevantly “amending current arrears in accordance to my current financial obligations”. He also requested “a stay order until such variation order has been finalised”.
Mr Caldron has been self-represented at all times and his affidavit filed in support of his application deposed that he received a letter on 29 July 2019 from the Department of Human Services. That letter is appended to his affidavit and notifies Mr Caldron that there had been an application to enforce a Court order for child support made in Country B on 10 May 2019 relating to child support for X. Also appended was the Order from the City C, Country B Court made on 10 May 2019 requiring Mr Caldron to pay monthly child support for X, born in 2014, in the sum of EUR 320. The affidavit also deposed to and annexed a further correspondence from the Department informing Mr Caldron that the application for child support had been accepted and the first payment would be $1,178.67 to be paid by 7 September 2019. Regular payments would be $499.14 per month.
The affidavit went on to assert at paragraphs 5 and 6:
5. I am seeking a variation order for child support to incorporate my dependents, finances and expenses as the current order was made without my knowledge and in my absence.
6. I am also seeking any necessary adjustments made to my current arrears for child support as these payments were accruing from 20 June 2019 and I was only notified at my current address on 29 July 2019. I only received a letter regarding outstanding payments issued on 11 September 2019.
Mr Caldron also filed a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CALDRON & EADLER and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] FCCA 1818
Decision Date: 7 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved were Caldron and Eadler. The dispute concerned an application to suspend a child support order that had been made ex parte in Country B. The applicant sought a revised assessment of child support calculated in accordance with Australian legislation. The matter came before Burchardt J.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it possessed the power to make orders in relation to a child support assessment, particularly given the existence of reciprocal legislation and the fact that the original order was made ex parte in a foreign jurisdiction. The Court was required to consider the scope of its jurisdiction and the appropriate approach to applications seeking a revised assessment under Australian law when a foreign order already existed.

Burchardt J considered the Court’s power in light of the relevant reciprocal legislation. The Court's reasoning focused on its ability to exercise jurisdiction in such circumstances and to make orders that reflected the submissions made by the Child Support Registrar. The Court ultimately made orders in accordance with those submissions.

Orders