Dyson and Morice (Child support)
Case
•
[2020] AATA 578
•30 January 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Dyson and Morice (Child support) [2020] AATA 578
[2020] AATA 578
30 January 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal to the tribunal by Ms Dyson regarding a decision on the percentage of care for child support purposes. The dispute arose from a change in the likely pattern of care, leading to existing percentage of care determinations being revoked and new ones made. Mr Morice had sought to establish a reduced percentage of care for himself, which Ms Dyson was challenging.
The tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether Mr Morice had taken "reasonable action" to ensure compliance with a parenting plan or court orders, as required by section 51 of the Act, to justify an interim care determination. Secondly, the tribunal had to consider whether there were "special circumstances" that prevented Ms Dyson from lodging her application for review within the prescribed 28-day period following the objection decision, pursuant to subsection 95N(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
In relation to the first issue, the tribunal found that Mr Morice had not taken reasonable action to enforce existing court orders. His evidence regarding contacting his lawyer was inconsistent and vague, and the tribunal did not accept that he had made any genuine attempt to have the orders enforced. Consequently, no interim care period could apply. Regarding the second issue, the tribunal was not persuaded that Ms Dyson had demonstrated special circumstances that prevented her from lodging her application for review within the 28-day timeframe. Her assertion that she never received the objection decision and her reliance on the Child Support app were not considered sufficient to establish special circumstances.
The tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted its own decision. It determined that the care percentages applicable to the child support assessment from 1 July 2018 were 100% to Ms Dyson and nil to Mr Morice. However, due to the absence of special circumstances, the date of effect of this decision was the date Ms Dyson's application for review was made, namely 14 November 2019.
The tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether Mr Morice had taken "reasonable action" to ensure compliance with a parenting plan or court orders, as required by section 51 of the Act, to justify an interim care determination. Secondly, the tribunal had to consider whether there were "special circumstances" that prevented Ms Dyson from lodging her application for review within the prescribed 28-day period following the objection decision, pursuant to subsection 95N(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
In relation to the first issue, the tribunal found that Mr Morice had not taken reasonable action to enforce existing court orders. His evidence regarding contacting his lawyer was inconsistent and vague, and the tribunal did not accept that he had made any genuine attempt to have the orders enforced. Consequently, no interim care period could apply. Regarding the second issue, the tribunal was not persuaded that Ms Dyson had demonstrated special circumstances that prevented her from lodging her application for review within the 28-day timeframe. Her assertion that she never received the objection decision and her reliance on the Child Support app were not considered sufficient to establish special circumstances.
The tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted its own decision. It determined that the care percentages applicable to the child support assessment from 1 July 2018 were 100% to Ms Dyson and nil to Mr Morice. However, due to the absence of special circumstances, the date of effect of this decision was the date Ms Dyson's application for review was made, namely 14 November 2019.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Appeal
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0