Conley & Goff - [2024] FedCFamC2F 1332

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Conley & Goff [2024] FedCFamC2F 1332

File number(s): DGC 3300 of 2023

Judgment of: JUDGE JENKINS

Date of judgment: 1 October 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Child support agreement – parents intended for it to be a binding child support agreement – application by father to set it aside due to hardship – application by mother to enforce – agreement not a binding child support agreement due to non-compliance with section 85 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act – agreement unenforceable because not accepted by the child support registrar – both applications dismissed .

Legislation:
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) ss 7(b), 12(2), 12(2AA), 80C, 80CA, 81(2), 85, 136

Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Act 2018 (Cth)

Cases cited: Masters & Cheyne [2016] FamCAFC 255

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 31

Date of hearing: 16 & 17 July 2024

Place: Dandenong

Representative for the Applicant: The father appearing in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms James

Solicitor for the Respondent: Andropoulos & Associates
ORDERS

DGC 3300 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR CONLEY

Applicant

AND:
MS GOFF

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE JENKINS

DATE OF ORDER:

1 OCTOBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All extant applications are dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE JENKINS:

The parties, Mr Conley (“the father”) and Ms Goff (“the mother’) entered into what they believed to be a binding child support agreement (“the agreement”) on 8 October 2019 in relation to their one child, X.
The father complied with the terms of the agreement between October 2019 and 23 May 2023 when he unilaterally ceased making the payments.
The father subsequently filed his application in these proceedings seeking to set aside the agreement. His case is that he has found himself in a dire financial situation as a result of events that were entirely unforeseeable at the time of the agreement. He argues these circumstances are exceptional and that if he were required to comply with the agreement it would cause him hardship.
The mother seeks that the father’s application be…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Conley & Goff

Details

AGLC: Conley & Goff [2024] FedCFamC2F 1332
Case: [2024] FedCFamC2F 1332
Decision Date: 1 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently dealt with a dispute between Mr Conley and Ms Goff, who are the parents of a child. Mr Conley sought to set aside a child support agreement due to hardship, while Ms Goff sought to enforce the agreement. The crux of the matter was whether the child support agreement was binding and enforceable. The court had to determine if the agreement was validly entered into as a binding child support agreement and if it complied with statutory requirements.

The central legal issue was whether the child support agreement was binding and enforceable under the Child Support (Assessment) Act. The court examined whether the agreement was made in accordance with the legislative requirements, particularly whether it was accepted by the child support registrar as mandated by section 85 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act. The court had to consider the intention of the parties and whether they genuinely intended for the agreement to be binding, as well as the procedural compliance with the statutory framework.

The court found that the child support agreement was not a binding child support agreement because it did not comply with the statutory requirement of being accepted by the child support registrar. Consequently, the agreement was unenforceable. The court dismissed both Mr Conley's application to set aside the agreement and Ms Goff's application to enforce it. Judge Jenkins held that since the agreement did not meet the necessary legislative criteria, neither party could enforce or be bound by the agreement. Therefore, the court dismissed all extant applications.

The court's final order was to dismiss all applications brought by both parties, effectively leaving the matter unresolved in terms of child support arrangements. This decision highlights the importance of procedural compliance in family law matters and the need for agreements to be formally accepted by the relevant authority to be legally binding.

Orders

Orders of the court

DGC 3300 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR CONLEY

Applicant

AND:

MS GOFF

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE JENKINS

DATE OF ORDER:

1 OCTOBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. All extant applications are dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number(s):	DGC 3300 of 2023
Judgment of:	JUDGE JENKINS
Date of judgment:	1 October 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Child support agreement – parents intended for it to be a binding child support agreement – application by father to set it aside due to hardship – application by mother to enforce – agreement not a binding child support agreement due to non-compliance with section 85 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act – agreement unenforceable because not accepted by the child support registrar – both applications dismissed .
Legislation:	Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) ss 7(b), 12(2), 12(2AA), 80C, 80CA, 81(2), 85, 136 Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Act 2018 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Masters & Cheyne [2016] FamCAFC 255
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	31
Date of hearing:	16 & 17 July 2024
Place:	Dandenong
Representative for the Applicant:	The father appearing in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms James
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Andropoulos & Associates

DGC 3300 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR CONLEY Applicant
AND:	MS GOFF Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE JENKINS
DATE OF ORDER:	1 OCTOBER 2024