Chatfield & Chatfield - [2021] FCCA 1242

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chatfield & Chatfield [2021] FCCA 1242

File number(s): MLC 3622 of 2021

Judgment of: JUDGE MCNAB

Date of judgment: 26 May 2021

Catchwords: CHILD SUPPORT – stay application – father seeks the collection of child support to be stayed pursuant to section 111C of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) – where the father had filed an application with the court on 1 April 2021 – where Child Support-Services Australia (“CSSA”) had reduced the Father’s child support obligations from $488.05 per week to $125 per week on 5 May 2021 – where the father has filed a notice of objection to the decision of CSSA – where the grant of a stay would be limited to a 60-day period – where there is a lack of proportionality between the costs that each party has been required to expend in these proceedings and the benefits to be obtained from granting a stay – application dismissed – where the father’s application was an abuse of process from the point that the CSSA’s decision was made on 5 May 2021 – where the father should have discontinued these proceedings once the CSSA’s decision was made on 5 May 2021 – where the mother was required to respond to the father’s application – father to pay the mother’s costs of the application.

Legislation:
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) s 111C

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(2A)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 1.08

Other Materials:

Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Joint Practice Direction 1 of 2020: Core Principles in the Case Management of Family Law Matters, 28 January 2020

Cases cited:
Actrol Parts Pty Ltd v Coppi (No 3) [2015] VSC 758

Yapp & Wyndham [2021] FamCAFC 80

Number of paragraphs: 22

Date of last submission/s: 26 May 2021

Date of hearing: 26 May 2021

Place: Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Mellas

Solicitor for the Applicant: Barry Nilsson Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms A Finemore

Solicitor for the Respondent: Duffy & Simon Lawyers
ORDERS

MLC 3622 of 2021

BETWEEN:
MR CHATFIELD

Applicant

AND:
MS CHATFIELD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE MCNAB

DATE OF ORDER:

26 MAY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant Husband’s application filed 1 April 2021 and amended application filed 26 May 2021 be dismissed.
2.The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5533.00.

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
Section 110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act1988 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Chatfield & Chatfield is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act

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 Chatfield & Chatfield

Details

AGLC: Chatfield & Chatfield [2021] FCCA 1242
Case: [2021] FCCA 1242
Decision Date: 26 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Chatfield & Chatfield*, Mr. Chatfield (the Applicant Husband) sought orders to stay the collection of child support payments pending the outcome of his application for a change of assessment filed with Child Support – Services Australia (CSSA). Ms. Chatfield was the Respondent. The application was heard by Judge McNab.

The legal issues before the Court were whether to grant the Applicant Husband's application for a stay of child support collection and whether to award indemnity costs to the Applicant Husband. The Court was also required to consider the significant costs incurred by the Applicant Husband in pursuing the stay application, particularly in light of the relatively small amount of child support that would be affected by a stay.

Judge McNab dismissed the Applicant Husband's application. The Court reasoned that the Applicant Husband had already obtained a significant reduction in his child support obligations, with his weekly payments decreasing from $488.05 to $125. Furthermore, the CSSA decision reducing the assessment was subject to a review process that was required to be completed within 60 days. Given these circumstances, the amount of child support likely to be affected by a stay was approximately $800. The Court noted that the Applicant Husband had expended substantial sums on legal fees, estimated to be around $10,000, to pursue a stay of this relatively small amount. The Court found that the application for a stay was not justified in these circumstances.

The Court ordered that the Applicant Husband's application be dismissed and that he pay the Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $5,533.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 3622 of 2021

BETWEEN:

MR CHATFIELD

Applicant

AND:

MS CHATFIELD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE MCNAB

DATE OF ORDER:

26 MAY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Applicant Husband’s application filed 1 April 2021 and amended application filed 26 May 2021 be dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5533.00.

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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 family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

This matter comes before the Court by way of an initiating application filed by the Applicant Father on 1 April 2021. The Father seeks orders pursuant to s111C of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Child Support Act”) for the collection of child support in respect of two children, born in 2006 and 2008, to be stayed pending the outcome of the Father’s application for a change of assessment filed with Child Support – Services Australia (“CSSA”) on 12 March 2021 and any subsequent period of objection. The Father, by written submissions filed on 19 May 2021, also seeks indemnity costs. I was advised that an amended initiating application was filed by the Father this day, by which the Father seeks orders in relation to a stay arising from a decision made by the CSSA on 12 March 2021. BACKGROUND On 5 May 2021, CSSA made a decision in relation to the Father’s application filed on 12 March 2021. The decision had the effect of reducing the annual rate of child support payable by the Father by $5,883. This has the result that the annual rate payable was reduced to $19,583 for the period of 25 January 2021 to 31 December 2021, and to $6,503 from 19 April 2021. As a consequence, the Father’s child support obligations reduced from $488.05 per week to $125 per week. I refer to the body of CSSA’s decision. On 11 May 2021, Registrar Sudholz made orders setting this matter down for an Interim Defended Hearing on 26 May 2021. Further orders were made for each party to file and serve written submissions (including submissions in relation to costs) of not more than 10 pages in length on or before 19 May 2021. On 11 May 2021, prior to the hearing before Registrar Sudholz, the Father sought to file a notice of objection to the CSSA’s decision of 5 May 2021 with the Child Support Registrar. I was told at the commencement of the hearing this morning that the filing of that application has been rejected. I was also told and accept that an objection containing an extra seven pages of particulars was accepted for filing this morning by the Child Support Registrar. The Mother gave evidence that she was prepared to accept a stay on the payment of child support until the completion of the administrative review lodged by the Father on 12 March 2021, but was not prepared to wait until the Father had exhausted all avenues of review. In circumstances where:(1)the Father is now being assessed to pay $125 per week in child support; and(2)he has reviewed that assessment and the review is required to be completed within 60 days of being filed, the amount that is likely to be affected by a stay is the sum of approximately $800. I have been told that since the assessment on 5 May 2021, the Father has expended between $1,200 to $2,000 dollars in relation to Counsel’s fees for written submissions, $4,800 for Counsel’s appearance today and that there will be further costs in relation to his solicitor. I assume that the costs of the stay application will be approximately $10,000. These funds have been expended for the purposes of obtaining a stay of child support payments in the approximate sum of $800. CONSIDERSATION

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	MLC 3622 of 2021
Judgment of:	JUDGE MCNAB
Date of judgment:	26 May 2021
Catchwords:	CHILD SUPPORT – stay application – father seeks the collection of child support to be stayed pursuant to section 111C of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) – where the father had filed an application with the court on 1 April 2021 – where Child Support-Services Australia (“CSSA”) had reduced the Father’s child support obligations from $488.05 per week to $125 per week on 5 May 2021 – where the father has filed a notice of objection to the decision of CSSA – where the grant of a stay would be limited to a 60-day period – where there is a lack of proportionality between the costs that each party has been required to expend in these proceedings and the benefits to be obtained from granting a stay – application dismissed – where the father’s application was an abuse of process from the point that the CSSA’s decision was made on 5 May 2021 – where the father should have discontinued these proceedings once the CSSA’s decision was made on 5 May 2021 – where the mother was required to respond to the father’s application – father to pay the mother’s costs of the application.
Legislation:	Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) s 111C Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117(2A) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 1.08 Other Materials: Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Joint Practice Direction 1 of 2020: Core Principles in the Case Management of Family Law Matters, 28 January 2020
Cases cited:	Actrol Parts Pty Ltd v Coppi (No 3) [2015] VSC 758 Yapp & Wyndham [2021] FamCAFC 80
Number of paragraphs:	22
Date of last submission/s:	26 May 2021
Date of hearing:	26 May 2021
Place:	Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr J Mellas
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Barry Nilsson Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms A Finemore
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Duffy & Simon Lawyers

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE MCNAB
DATE OF ORDER:	26 MAY 2021