Crichard and Meservie (Child support)
Case
•
[2022] AATA 3073
•20 July 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Crichard and Meservie (Child support) [2022] AATA 3073
[2022] AATA 3073
20 July 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the dispute between Crichard and Meservie concerning the percentage of care for their child. The applicants sought to have existing percentage of care determinations revoked and new determinations made.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there had been a change to the likely pattern of care for the child, which would justify revoking the existing determinations and making new ones.
The Tribunal reviewed the evidence presented by both parties regarding the care arrangements for the child. It applied the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) concerning changes in the pattern of care. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal found that a change to the likely pattern of care had occurred. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to revoke the existing percentage of care determinations and make new determinations.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there had been a change to the likely pattern of care for the child, which would justify revoking the existing determinations and making new ones.
The Tribunal reviewed the evidence presented by both parties regarding the care arrangements for the child. It applied the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) concerning changes in the pattern of care. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal found that a change to the likely pattern of care had occurred. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to revoke the existing percentage of care determinations and make new determinations.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0