Coombs and Wreford (Child support)

[2022] AATA 5131

Coombs and Wreford (Child support) [2022] AATA 5131 (12 December 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/SC024800

APPLICANT:  Mr Coombs

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

Ms Wreford

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member J Cipolla

DECISION DATE:  12 December 2022

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – dismissal of application for review – departure from the administrative assessment – no reasonable prospect of success – application for review dismissed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW:

1. The Tribunal has determined that the application for review has no reasonable prospects of success and dismisses the application for review pursuant to subsection 42B(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act).

2. The reasons for the Tribunal’s decision are set out in the following paragraphs.

3. On 25 November 2020 this Tribunal (differently constituted) set aside a decision made by an objections officer of the Child Support Agency (the Agency) and, in substitution, decided that:

   ·     for the period 1 July 2019 to 31 October 2020 Mr Coombs’ annual rate of child support is varied to $10,400;

   ·     for the period 1 November 2020 until a terminating event occurs in relation to the child Thomas, Mr Coombs’ annual rate of child support is varied to $7,800; and

   ·     for the period 1 July 2019 to 31 December 2022 Mr Coombs’ annual rate of child support is increased by $17,000 per annum.

4. Mr Coombs did not pursue his appeal rights in respect of the AAT decision of 25 November 2020 to the Federal Circuit Court.

5. On 5 October 2021 Mr Coombs lodged a departure application with the Agency.

6. On 21 October 2021 a senior case officer refused the application.

7. Mr Coombs lodged an objection to that decision on 5 January 2022.

8. Mr Coombs failed to lodge his objection application within 28 days, and he was required to lodge an extension of time application.

9. The extension of time request was considered, and the Agency refused it.

10. Mr Coombs appealed the extension of time decision to this Tribunal. The Tribunal (differently constituted) allowed his application on 21 June 2022.

11. On 19 September 2022 his objection to the senior case officer decision, dated 21 October 2021 was disallowed.

12. On 6 October 2022 Mr Coombs lodged an application for review with the AAT in respect of the objections officer decision made by the Agency.

13. An early case appraisal conference took place on 28 November 2022. The Tribunal contacted Mr Coombs by telephone. Mr Coombs agreed to participate in the conference. The conference registrar discussed the merits of the review application with him.

14. On 29 November 2022 the Tribunal wrote to Mr Coombs via his nominated email address. The letter, in part, stated:

    As discussed at your Early Case Assessment Conference, the Tribunal is considering whether to dismiss your application under section 42B(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 on the basis that the application has no reasonable prospect of success.

    You have 21 days from the date of this letter to give us any evidence or written submission that you wish to have considered before that decision is considered.

15. On the same day (29 November 2022) Mr Coombs wrote to the Tribunal. Mr Coombs raised issues about previous child support decisions being unfair.  Mr Coombs alleged that the evidence in respect of these previous hearings had not been considered properly. Mr Coombs also claimed that Ms Wreford had provided misleading evidence at these hearings.

16. The issues raised by Mr Coombs are in respect of previous decisions made by this Tribunal. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Coombs has exercised his appeal rights to the Federal Circuit Court in respect of those decisions. Mr Coombs has not provided any new evidence to the Agency or indeed to this Tribunal to support his claims; rather, he continues to pursue litigation with respect to what he considers to be the unfairness of past decisions.

17. In view of Mr Coombs not providing any submissions or evidence to contradict the findings made by the Agency, the Tribunal is satisfied that the application for review has no reasonable prospects of success and so dismisses the application pursuant to subsection 42B(1) of the AAT Act.