Cleveland and Bridge (Child support)

Senior Member R Ellis of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a dispute between Cleveland and Bridge concerning the crediting of mortgage payments as prescribed payments under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). The applicant, Cleveland, sought to have mortgage payments made by them in respect of a property owned by Bridge, and in which the child resided, recognised as satisfying their child support obligations.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the mortgage payments made by Cleveland met the criteria for being credited as prescribed payments, and if so, whether there were grounds to exercise discretion to refuse such credit. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if all conditions stipulated by the legislation for crediting these payments were satisfied, and if the Tribunal retained a discretion to disallow the credit even if those conditions were met.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*. Senior Member Ellis found that the conditions for crediting the mortgage payments as prescribed payments were indeed satisfied. The legislation provided for such payments to be credited where they were made in respect of a home where the child resided and were agreed to by the parties. Having found that these conditions were met, the Tribunal then considered the question of discretion. The Tribunal concluded that while the legislation allowed for discretion in certain circumstances, the facts of this case did not warrant the exercise of that discretion to refuse the credit.

Consequently, the decision under review was set aside and substituted with a new decision that credited the mortgage payments made by Cleveland towards their child support liability.