Colbert and Colbert and Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 17 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COLBERT & COLBERT & ANOR [2016] FCCA 3236
Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal (Child Support) from the AAT – procedural fairness grounds dismissed – failure to take into account relevant consideration ground dismissed.

Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, p. IV, s.44AAA

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, p. 6A., ss.117(2)(b)(ib), 117(2)(b)(ii), 117(2)(c)(ia)

Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, p.VIIA

Cases cited:

Abebe v The Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14

Carlson & Acuff & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 677

Child Support Registrar & Crabbe and Anor [2014] FamCAFC 10

Child Support Registrar & Crowley and Anor [2015] FamCAFC 76

Child Support Registrar & Scullin and Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2015] FamCAFC 200

Haritos v Commission of Taxation [2015] FCAFC

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZGUR [2011] HCA 1
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[2006] HCA 63

Applicant: MR COLBERT
First Respondent: MS COLBERT
Second Respondent: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
File Number: BRG 587 of 2016
Judgment of: Judge Cassidy
Hearing date: 7 October 2016
Date of Last Submission: 7 October 2016
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 15 December 2016

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person
The First Respondent appeared in person by telephone
Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Mr C Bishop of Department of Human Services

ORDERS

  1. That the Amended Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed on 13 September 2016 be dismissed.

  2. That there be no order as to costs.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Colbert & Colbert & Anor is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 587 of 2016

MR COLBERT

Applicant

And

MS COLBERT

First Respondent

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is an application filed on 13 September 2016 by Mr Colbert and it is a Notice of Appeal (Child Support). The appeal seeks to review a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the AAT’) dated 22 April 2016.

  2. The appeal must be brought on a question of law pursuant to s.44AAA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (‘the AAT Act’).

  3. The AAT decision under review decided to set the applicant’s adjusted taxable income at $78,000 for the period of 23 April 2014 to 30 June 2016. In addition, the AAT increased the annual rate of child support by $978 for the period of 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015.

  4. The applicant sets out three questions of law and provides five grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal that he filed on 13 September 2016.

The Material

  1. The material relied on by the applicant:

    a)The Notice of Appeal filed on 13 September 2016 (‘the Amended Notice of Appeal);

    b)The applicant’s Affidavit filed on 13 September 2016; and

    c)With leave, parts of an Affidavit filed by the applicant on 29 June 2016 ruled admissible at the hearing.

  2. The Child…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Colbert and Colbert and Anor 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] FCCA 3236
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Colbert and Colbert and Anor*, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered an appeal by the father against a decision of a Registrar concerning child support. The dispute centred on the father's objection to a child support assessment made by the Registrar, which the father sought to have set aside.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the Registrar had erred in law or fact in refusing to set aside the child support assessment. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Registrar's findings regarding the father's income and the child support payable were justified, and if the father had established grounds for setting aside the assessment under the relevant provisions of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth).

The Full Court dismissed the father's appeal, finding no error in the Registrar's decision. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) and reviewed the evidence presented to the Registrar. It was held that the Registrar had properly considered the available information and made a reasonable assessment based on the evidence before her. The Court concluded that the father had failed to demonstrate that the assessment was unjust or unreasonable, or that any other grounds for setting aside the assessment had been met. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the Amended Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed on 13 September 2016 be dismissed.

2.

That there be no order as to costs.

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.