Dixon v Child Support Registrar - [2017] FCCA 1540

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIXON v CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

[2017] FCCA 1540

Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Application for leave to proceed with appeal in relation to a decision of the AAT dismissed– application for leave to proceed out of time dismissed – substantive application has no merit.

FAMILY LAW – Costs – the applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Legislation:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, ss.5, 10(1), 11

Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, ss.38A, 38B, 39, 39A

Cases cited:

Bauer & Becker [2009] FMCAfam 480
Hamden v Secretary, Department of Human Services [2013] FCA 3
Hopkins & Shorley & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2014] FCCA 158

Hopkins & Walker [2007] FamCA 317

Hopkins & Walker & Anor [2013] FamCA 616

In the Marriage of Zabeneh (1986) FLC 91-766
Langmeil & Grange [2013] FamCAFC 31

Applicant:

MR DIXON

Respondent:

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

File Number:

BRG 898 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge Cassidy

Hearing date:

31 March 2017

Date of Last Submission:

31 March 2017

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

11 July 2017

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person.

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms Rayment of Mills Oakley

ORDERS

That the application for leave to proceed and leave to proceed out of time filed by applicant on 15 August 2016 be dismissed.
That the application in a case filed by the applicant on 7 March 2017 be dismissed.
That within twenty-eight (28) days the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,948.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Dixon v Child Support Registrar is approved pursuant to s.110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 898 of 2016

MR DIXON

Applicant

And

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is an application by Mr Michael Hendy in relation to child support. Mr Hendy filed two applications;:
a)the first on 8 September 2016 for an extension of time in order to review a decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 (Cth) (‘ADJR Act’); and
b)the second application is an application in a case filed on 31 March 2017 where the applicant seeks various injunctions preventing the Child Support Registrar (‘the Registrar’) from collecting the child support debt that is owed by Mr Hendy. Mr Hendy also seeks an order that the respondent provide him with various documents.
Mr Hendy also seeks, although not in an application but rather in his outline of submissions, that he be excused from complying with an undertaking dated 4 June 2004 that was given to the Family Court of Australia. I intend to deal with the undertaking and then the application for leave to proceed and finally consider an analysis of the merits of the substantive application.

The Undertaking

On 4 June 2004, the applicant gave an undertaking to Justice Warnick in the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane that he will:
“Not bring any proceedings pursuant to the Child Support…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dixon v Child Support Registrar 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] FCCA 1540
Decision Date: 11 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Dixon v Child Support Registrar*, heard by Judge Cassidy, the applicant sought leave to proceed with an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning child support. The applicant also sought leave to proceed with this appeal out of time.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the applicant leave to proceed with the appeal, and if so, whether to grant leave to proceed out of time. A further issue was the substantive merit of the applicant's proposed appeal.

Judge Cassidy dismissed the application for leave to proceed and the application for leave to proceed out of time, finding that the substantive application lacked merit. Consequently, the court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs, fixed at $6,948, within twenty-eight days.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the application for leave to proceed and leave to proceed out of time filed by applicant on 15 August 2016 be dismissed.

That the application in a case filed by the applicant on 7 March 2017 be dismissed.

That within twenty-eight (28) days the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,948.

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.