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 |
| 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
That the Amended Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed on 13 September 2016 be dismissed.
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
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.
The appeal must be brought on a question of law pursuant to s.44AAA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (‘the AAT Act’).
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.
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
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.
The Child…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] FCCA 3236
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.