Camden v Child Support Registrar

In *Camden v Child Support Registrar*, Judge Brown of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an appeal against an administrative decision to make a Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) against the applicant. The Registrar, represented by Ms C, a supervisory officer with delegation to make DPOs, sought to uphold the order. The applicant sought to have the DPO set aside.

The court was required to determine whether the Registrar had been reasonably satisfied of the necessary matters to justify the making of the DPO, specifically whether there was a child support liability, whether satisfactory arrangements had been made to discharge that liability, and whether it was desirable to make the DPO. The applicant also contended that the decision to make the DPO was legally unreasonable or an abuse of process, and the court considered the applicant's capacity to pay. The onus was on the applicant to establish that the DPO should not have been made.

Judge Brown reasoned that Ms C had properly considered the relevant criteria under section 72D of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1984* (Cth). Ms C was satisfied that the applicant owed a significant child support debt of $99,080.05, a fact not in dispute. Regarding satisfactory arrangements for payment, the court noted that the only payments made were compulsory deductions from the applicant's aged pension, amounting to between $40 and $50 per month. Ms C also considered a transcript of a telephone conversation from 12 September 2018, where the applicant expressed resentment but did not dispute the existence of the debt. The court found that Ms C had reached a state of intellectual satisfaction that making the DPO was desirable, and the applicant had not discharged the onus of proving the DPO should not have been made.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the amount of $7,200.00.