COG15 v Child Support Registrar

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COG15 v CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR & ANOR [2015] FCCA 3480

Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services & Child Support Division) – whether the Tribunal failed to apply the correct test – whether the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant material – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, ss.103T, 103X, 110B

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, ss.98S, 117

Migration Act 1958, s.430

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 74 ALJR 405
Gyselman & Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279

Applicant: COG15

First Respondent: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Second Respondent: COH15

File Number: SYG 3263 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 23 December 2015

Date of Last Submission: 23 December 2015

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 23 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr B D Kaplan

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

1. The notice of appeal is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym COG15 v Child Support Registrar & Anor is approved pursuant to s.110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3263 of 2015

COG15

Applicant

And

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

First Respondent

COH15

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal to the Court under its jurisdiction that was conferred under s.110B of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of a decision of the Tribunal made on 2 September 2014 under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth). The right of appeal to this Court under s.110B of the first mentioned Act is confined to an appeal only on a question of law. The notice of grounds of appeal of the applicant are as follows:

   1. Has the Tribunal failed to construe properly the legislative provisions applicable when finding that it was permissible to make a single determination for the period of 1 November 2013 to 31 December 2015?

   2. Has the Tribunal failed to construe properly the legislative provisions applicable when finding that it was permissible of [COH15] to change work patterns to part-time employment so that [COH15]could remove her son, [X] from after school care at paragraph 55 of the Tribunals reasoning?

   3. Has the Tribunal failed to construe properly the legislative provisions applicable when finding that there is no practical difference in the financial capacity of a person and a company under that person's control for the purposes of income calculations at paragraph 29 of the Tribunals reasoning?

   4. Has the Tribunal demonstrated that a reviewable error has not been made by way of adequate reasoning to explain how they arrived at the finding that the medical evidence tendered and accepted by the Child Support Agency is no longer to be considered at paragraph 45 of the Tribunals reasoning?

   5. Has the Tribunal failed to construe properly the legislative provisions applicable when…