FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Child Support Registrar v MQMV [2019] FCA 1171
File number: NSD 1769 of 2018 Judge: FLICK J Date of judgment: 31 July 2019 Catchwords: CHILD SUPPORT – objection to percentage of care decision rejected – first review by Administrative Appeals Tribunal – second review sought – question as to absence of jurisdiction of Tribunal – Tribunal has jurisdiction
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – jurisdiction of Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Legislation: A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) ss 3, 128
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 43
Child Support (Assessment) Act1989 (Cth) Pt 5, Div 4, Subdivs B, C, ss 5, 41, 43, 49, 50, 54F, 54H
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act1988 (Cth) Pt VIIA, Divs 2, 4, ss 4, 87, 87A, 89, 96A, 103VA,
Tribunals Amalgamation Act2015 (Cth)
Explanatory Memorandum, Tribunals Amalgamation Bill 2014 (Cth)
Cases cited: Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters v Cross [2012] HCA 56, (2012) 248 CLR 378
Mitchell v Bailey [2008] FCA 426, (2008) 168 FCR 370
Re MQMV and Child Support Registrar (Child Support Second Review) [2018] AATA 2924
SAS Trustee Corporation v Miles [2018] HCA 55, (2018) 92 ALJR 1064
Date of hearing: 7 March 2019 and 3 April 2019 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 60 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C J Tran Solicitor for the Applicant: Sparke Helmore Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent did not appear Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs Counsel for the Third Respondent: The Third Respondent did not appear Counsel Appearing as Amicus Curiae: Ms Z Heger ORDERS
NSD 1769 of 2018 BETWEEN: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
Applicant
AND: MQMV
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
FUE18
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
FLICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 JULY 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Originating Application is dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FLICK J:
The issue to be resolved in the present proceeding is a question as to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) with respect to a decision taken under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act1988 (Cth) (the “Registration Act”). The decision concerned the percentage of care exercised with respect to a child by his father.
In August 2018, in Re MQMV and Child Support Registrar (Child Support Second Review) [2018] AATA 2924 the Tribunal concluded that it did have jurisdiction to review a decision previously made by the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Tribunal in November 2017. In doing so, the Tribunal in August 2018 “overruled” the Child Support Registrar’s (the “Registrar”) objection to jurisdiction.
In September 2018, the Registrar filed in this Court an Originating Application. In summary form, the Registrar contends that the Tribunal…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Child Support Registrar v MQMV 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
- [2019] FCA 1171
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had jurisdiction to review the Registrar's decision concerning the percentage of care for the child. This question arose because the applicable legislation, the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, did not explicitly grant the AAT the power to review such decisions. However, the Registration of Judgments Act 1992 provided a more general framework for judicial review of administrative decisions, which the court had to interpret in light of the specific provisions of the Assessment Act.
The court determined that the AAT did indeed have jurisdiction to review the Registrar's decision. It reasoned that while the Assessment Act did not expressly confer this power on the AAT, the Registration of Judgments Act offered a broader basis for judicial review that encompassed the AAT's review of the Registrar's decisions. The court found that the AAT's review was consistent with the legislative intent to provide a mechanism for challenging administrative decisions related to child support assessments.
In light of its findings, the court dismissed the originating application, confirming that the AAT had the jurisdiction to review the Registrar's decision on the percentage of care. The court's decision underscored the importance of interpreting legislative provisions in a way that allows for effective judicial oversight of administrative actions, ensuring that individuals have access to review mechanisms when their interests are affected by such decisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Originating Application is dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.