CBH23 v Child Support Registrar - [2024] FedCFamC2G 201

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
CBH23 v Child Support Registrar [2024] FedCFamC2G 201

File number(s): SYG 1302 of 2023

Judgment of: JUDGE STREET

Date of judgment: 16 February 2024

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – registrable overseas maintenance liability – meaning of child – relationship not under age of 18 – no estoppel.

Legislation:
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013

Cases cited:
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394

Jones v the Child Support Registrar [2007] FCA 1732

Minister of Immigration Affairs v Kurtovic [1990] 21 FCR 193

Tobin & Tobin [2022] FedCFamC1F 220

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Place: Sydney

Number of paragraphs: 16

Date of hearing: 16 February 2024

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr N Ford

Solicitor for the Applicant: Watts Mccray Lawyers

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Z Heger

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Second Respondent: Did not appear
ORDERS

SYG 1302 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
CBH23

Applicant

AND:
CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

First Respondent

CBI23

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE STREET

DATE OF ORDER:

16 FEBRUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Notice to Produce dated 15 February 2024 is struck out.
2.The Notice of Appeal is dismissed.
3.The applicant pays the first respondent’s costs on a party-party basis in an amount agreed or assessed.

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).
Note: Section 110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in child support review proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under a pseudonym is approved pursuant to s 110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE STREET

These are child support proceedings that were commenced by a notice of appeal filed on 11 August 2023 and raise two grounds of appeal in the amended notice of appeal filed 15 December 2023 as follows:
(a)The power to collect overseas child maintenance rests upon the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) s18A. Pursuant to Section 18A a liability is a registrable overseas maintenance liability if it is a liability of a parent or stepparent of a child to pay a periodic amount for the maintenance of the child. The specific reference in this section to a “child” precludes Services Australia from having the power to collect or enforce…

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 CBH23 v Child Support Registrar 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: [2024] FedCFamC2G 201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of CBH23 v Child Support Registrar, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an appeal against the enforcement of child support liabilities by the Child Support Registrar. The applicant, CBH23, challenged the Registrar's authority to enforce child support payments for his child, who had turned 18, and sought to prevent the issuance of a Departure Prohibition Order on the basis of estoppel, arguing that the Registrar had represented the child support debt was settled.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Child Support Registrar had the authority to enforce child support liabilities for a child over the age of 18 and whether estoppel could prevent the Registrar from enforcing further child support liabilities based on a representation that the debt was settled. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, specifically the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, and interpreted the term "child" in section 18A, which defines a registrable overseas maintenance liability. The court found that the term "child" did not necessarily require the individual to be under 18 years of age, but rather referred to the relationship between the parent and the child.

The court further addressed the applicant's estoppel argument, noting that estoppel could not prevent the Registrar from enforcing child support liabilities, as it was a matter of statutory duty under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. The court held that the applicant's reliance on the representation of no outstanding child support debt did not constitute a detriment sufficient to warrant an estoppel, as the applicant had already fulfilled existing liabilities.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal and found that the Child Support Registrar had the authority to enforce child support liabilities for a child over the age of 18. Additionally, the court determined that estoppel did not apply to prevent the enforcement of further child support liabilities based on the representation of a settled debt. The court ordered the notice of appeal to be dismissed and the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs on a party-party basis in an agreed or assessed amount.

Orders