CAM22 v Child Support Registrar (No 2) - [2023] FedCFamC2G 71

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
CAM22 v Child Support Registrar (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2G 71

File number(s): BRG 240 of 2022

Judgment of: JUDGE TONKIN

Date of judgment: 23 February 2023

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application for costs – whether costs should be awarded – Order made for applicant to pay first respondent’s costs

Legislation:
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth)

Federal Circuit & Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999

Cases cited:
Carrell v Mayne [2021] FedCFamC2G 162

Kazar (Liquidator) v Kargarian; In the Matter of Frontier Architects Pty Ltd (In Liq)[2011] FCAFC 136

Maple v Nui & Anor (No 2) [2018] FCCA 26

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 10

Date of last submission/s: 22 December 2022

Date of hearing: 24 October 2022

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Haddrick

Solicitor for the Applicant: Bhardwaj and Associate Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondents: Mills Oakley

Solicitor for the Respondents: Second Respondent appeared in person
ORDERS

BRG 240 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
CAM22

Applicant

AND:
CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

First Respondent

CAP22

Second Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE TONKIN

DATE OF ORDER:

23 February 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant CAM22 pay the first respondent’s costs in the fixed amount of $11,401.00 within 30 days in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE TONKIN

On 9 December 2022 the applicant’s (CAM22) appeal from a first review decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 27 April 2022 was dismissed.
The first respondent (Child Support Registrar) in written submissions filed on 17 October 2022 sought an order that the applicant (appellant) pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $11,401 within 30 days. On 9 December 2022 the Court ordered the applicant to file written submissions as to costs within 14 days. The applicant filed written submissions on 23 December 2022. The first respondent advised the Court that no further submissions in reply would be filed. The second respondent made no submissions as to costs.
The first respondent relied on the decision in Maple v Nui & Anor (No 2) [2018] FCCA 26 and contends in matters arising under the AAT Act costs follow the event. In Maple & Nui (supra) Judge Terry…

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 CAM22 v Child Support Registrar (No 2) 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: [2023] FedCFamC2G 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In CAM22 v Child Support Registrar (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2G 71, the applicant (CAM22) sought to appeal a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding child support payments. The Child Support Registrar, as the first respondent, sought an order for costs against the applicant, arguing that costs should follow the event in line with the principles established in Maple v Nui & Anor (No 2) [2018] FCCA 26. The second respondent (CAP22) did not submit any costs-related arguments.

The legal issues for the court to decide were whether the applicant's appeal was frivolous or vexatious and whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the first respondent's costs. The court had to consider the statutory provisions for costs under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021, as well as relevant case law. The court also had to examine the applicant's financial circumstances and the merits of the appeal.

Judge Tonkin found that the applicant had failed to produce relevant financial documents as directed, had not established any question of law, and had not shown any public interest or unusual legal matter in the appeal. The court concluded that the applicant's appeal was unsuccessful and that costs should be awarded to the first respondent. The court considered the broad discretion it had under the relevant legislation and rules and determined that ordering the applicant to pay costs was appropriate to compensate the first respondent for expenses that might otherwise have been avoided. The court further found that the applicant's financial hardship did not preclude the award of costs, as the primary purpose of a costs order was to compensate the successful party rather than to penalise the unsuccessful party.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs in the fixed amount of $11,401.00 within 30 days in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021. The court emphasised that the rationale for making a costs order was not to punish the unsuccessful litigant but to compensate the successful litigant for expenses that might otherwise have been avoided. The court also noted that the applicant's serious allegations against the second respondent did not bear on the decision regarding costs.

Orders