FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Child Support Registrar v CMU23 [2024] FCA 109
Appeal from: Oldfather and Fountaine (Child Support) [2023] AATA 3301 File number: QUD 462 of 2023 Judgment of: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 1 February 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – where the applicant appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) which affirmed a decision of the Child Support Registrar (Registrar) for an alleged error of law – where s 53 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (Assessment Act) provides exceptions to the operation of s 51 of the Assessment Act – where second respondent notified the Registrar of a change in percentage of care – where decision of Registrar reviewed by the Tribunal – where Tribunal determined that the s 53 exceptions did not have any operation by reading words into the Assessment Act – whether the Tribunal made an error of law – appeal allowed
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – where s 53(1)(c) of the Assessment Act contains an exception to the operation of s 51 of the Assessment Act – where the s 53(1)(c) exception makes no reference to ‘maximum interim period’, unlike the exceptions contained in s 53(1)(a) and s 53(1)(b) – whether and to what extent it is permissible, in undertaking statutory interpretation, to read words into a statutory provision – where there were multiple different interpretations adopted in different decisions of the Tribunal – where it is impossible to identify the potential words to be read in with the requisite precision
Legislation: Constitution
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AA
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) ss 3, 4, 15AA, 35A, 48, 51, 53, 53A, 53C, 55C, 150
Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Cth) s 84
Cases cited: Castle and Jonas (Child support) [2022] AATA 1702
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) v Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297
Gauntlett v Repatriation Commission (1991) 32 FCR 73
Inco Europe Limited v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586
Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates [1980] AC 74
Mendez and Morton (Child support) [2019] AATA 3844
Ralph v Repatriation Commission (2016) 248 FCR 438
Taylor v The Owners – Strata Plan No 11564 (2014) 253 CLR 531
Division: General Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 51 Date of hearing: 1 February 2024 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S McLeod KC with Mr M Maynard Solicitor for the Applicant: Sparke Helmore Counsel for the Respondents: The Respondents did not appear ORDERS
QUD 462 of 2023 BETWEEN: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
Applicant
AND: CMU23
First Respondent
CMV23
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
1 FEBRUARY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The terms of order 2 of the orders of 21 November 2023 be extended to any affidavit filed in these proceedings, having regard to s 150 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth).
2.The appeal be allowed.
3.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) of 14 September 2023…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Child Support Registrar v CMU23 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] FCA 109
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issue for the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of s 53 of the Assessment Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Tribunal had the authority to read words into the statutory provision, which would alter the meaning of the exceptions contained in s 53. The Registrar argued that the Tribunal had incorrectly applied the exceptions in s 53 by reading into the Act words that were not present in the statute. The court also considered whether the Tribunal's varying interpretations of s 53, as evidenced in different decisions, could be reconciled.
The court held that the Tribunal had indeed erred in law by reading words into s 53 of the Assessment Act. The court found that the Tribunal's interpretation of the statutory exceptions was inconsistent and lacked the requisite precision to justify such an alteration. The court emphasised that statutory interpretation should not involve the insertion of words not found in the statute unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication that such an insertion is necessary to give effect to the statute's purpose. The court also noted that the Tribunal's varying interpretations of the statute created an element of uncertainty that was not warranted by the text of the Act.
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law. The court further ordered that any affidavit filed in these proceedings be subject to a direction under s 150 of the Assessment Act. No order was made as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The terms of order 2 of the orders of 21 November 2023 be extended to any affidavit filed in these proceedings, having regard to s 150 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth).
2. The appeal be allowed.
3. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) of 14 September 2023 be set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for review decision according to law.
4. There be no order as to costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
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.