Campling and Bryant (Child support) - [2022] AATA 2096

Campling and Bryant (Child support) [2022] AATA 2096 (26 April 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/MC022660
APPLICANT:  Mr Campling
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Bryant

TRIBUNAL:Member C Breheny
DECISION DATE: 26 April 2022
DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of the liable parent – a ground for departure established – decision to depart – decision under review affirmed

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

Ms Bryant and Mr Campling are the separated parents of [Child 1], born [in] March 2006. A child support case has been registered with the (then) Department of Human Services – Child Support (Child Support) since 27 March 2006 and registered for collection since 30 May 2011. Child support is payable on the basis that Ms Bryant has 100% care of [Child 1] and Mr Campling is assessed as liable to pay child support to Ms Bryant.
There have been previous departure determinations in this case. An application was initially lodged by Ms Bryant on 28 June 2017 and ultimately decided by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal), differently constituted, on 11 July 2018. The Tribunal determined that Mr Campling and his wife jointly controlled a company, [Company 1] and set Mr Campling’s adjusted taxable income at $62,000 for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 December 2019. The income amount increased slight due to CPI indexation and resulted in a child support liability of $8,829 per annum.
On 4 September 2019 Ms Bryant lodged a further change of assessment application, as she had been advised that Mr Campling’s child support liability would be administratively assessed from 1 January 2020 as being $2,396 per annum, based on Mr Campling’s 2018/19 deemed taxable income of $35,456 and Ms Bryant’s 2018/19 provisional income of $22,321. On 3 December 2019 COA decision-maker (DM) [named] determined that Mr Campling’s adjusted taxable income was set at $65,000 from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020. This resulted in a child support liability of $9,057 per annum. No one objected to that decision.
On 1 October 2020 Ms Bryant lodged a third change of assessment application, as she had been advised that Mr Campling’s child support liability would decrease to $7,182 from 1 January 2021, based on his 2019/20 adjusted taxable income of $56,800 and Ms Bryant’s 2019/20 adjusted taxable income of $22,760.
On 20 November 2020, DM [named] decided to change the administrative assessment on the basis of Mr Campling’s income and financial resources and determined that for the period 1 January 2021 until a terminating event ends the assessment of Mr Campling’s adjusted taxable income was set at $100,000 per annum.
On 8 February 2021,…

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 Campling and Bryant (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Campling and Bryant (Child support) [2022] AATA 2096
Case: [2022] AATA 2096
Decision Date: 26 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a departure determination under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) by the liable parent, Mr. Campling, against the child support assessment made in favour of Ms. Bryant. The dispute centred on whether the liable parent's income, property, and financial resources warranted a departure from the assessment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the liable parent had established a ground for departure from the child support assessment, specifically concerning his income, property, and financial resources. The court was required to determine if these factors were such that the assessment was not fair and just in the circumstances.

The court affirmed the decision to depart from the assessment. It reasoned that the liable parent's income, property, and financial resources were indeed significant and that the existing assessment did not adequately reflect his capacity to pay. The court applied the principles established under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) concerning departure from assessments, finding that the circumstances justified a modification of the original assessment to ensure fairness and equity.

Orders