Dinman and Dinman (Child support)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Dinman, against a decision of the Child Support Registrar. The dispute centred on whether a payment made by Dinman for school fees constituted a "prescribed payment" for the purposes of child support. The Registrar had determined that the payment was not a prescribed payment and therefore could not be credited against Dinman's child support liability.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the payment made by Dinman for school fees met the criteria of a "prescribed payment" as defined by the relevant legislation, specifically section 117 of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). This required the court to consider whether the payment was made in accordance with an agreement or order, and whether it was of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of reducing child support obligations.

The court affirmed the Registrar's decision, finding that the payment for school fees did not qualify as a prescribed payment. The reasoning was that the payment was made directly to the school by Dinman, rather than through the Child Support Agency, and there was no evidence of a formal agreement or court order mandating such a payment as a substitute for child support. The court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the definition of "prescribed payment," concluding that the specific requirements for such payments were not met in this instance.