Eagle and Eagle and Anor (SSAT Appeal) - [2012] FMCAfam 463

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EAGLE & EAGLE and ANOR (SSAT APPEAL)

[2012] FMCAfam 463

CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal – errors of law alleged – no errors found.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, ss.80, 117

Child Support (Regulation & Collection) Act 1988, ss.103X, 110B, 110F

Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wendesbury Corporation [1947] 1KB 223
Hartnett v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2004] FCA 50
Australia Securities and Investments Commission v Saxvy Bridge Financial Planning Pty Ltd (2003) 47 ACSR 649
Hill v Repatriation Commission (2005) 85 ALD 1
Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70

Applicant:

MR EAGLE

First Respondent:

MS EAGLE

Second Respondent:

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

File Number:

BRC 1492 of 2009

Judgment of:

Coates FM

Hearing date:

16 December 2011

Date of Last Submission:

24 January 2012

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

28 May 2012

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Self represented

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Self represented

Solicitors for the Second Respondent:

Child Support Registrar

ORDERS

That the Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed 14 November 2011 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Eagle & Eagle is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRC 1492 of 2009

MR EAGLE

Applicant

And

MS EAGLE

First Respondent

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against a decision of the Social Securities Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal).
Section 110B of the Child Support (Regulation & Collection) Act 1988 (the Act) states the only ground of an appeal is upon a question of law.
The appellant set out the following as his grounds of appeal:
“1. The decision of the Tribunal was unreasonable, as no tribunal could have reasonably reached the decision made, having properly considered the available evidence.
2. The decision of the Tribunal is based upon findings for which there was no evidence.
3. The decision of the Tribunal fails to give a proper consideration and weigh to evidence available to it.
4. The Tribunal failed in its duty to conduct proceedings in accordance with procedural fairness.
5. The Tribunal acted in a manner which gave rise to a bias – perceived and actual.
6. The decision of the Tribunal is not just and equitable as between the Appellant and the respondent.”
Further, the appellant sought five orders, being:
“1. The decision of the Tribunal for the appellant to pay half of the annual private school fees for children; X and Y be stayed until further order of the court.
2. The decision of the Tribunal for the appellant to pay half of the annual private school fees for children; X, Z and Y be set aside.
3. Monies paid to the Respondent pursuant to Child Support Agency assessment and decision of the Tribunal, be refunded to the Applicant or in the alternative Credit against future 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 Eagle and Eagle and Anor (SSAT Appeal) 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: [2012] FMCAfam 463
Decision Date: 28 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ms Eagle, appealed a decision of the Child Support Registrar regarding the calculation of child support payments. The appeal was heard by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) and was dismissed. The primary issue before the tribunal was whether the Registrar erred in his decision to calculate child support payments using the information provided by the respondent, Mr Eagle, rather than the information provided by Ms Eagle. Ms Eagle argued that the Registrar should have used her information to calculate the payments, as she had provided evidence that Mr Eagle had understated his income and overstated his expenses. The tribunal found that the Registrar was entitled to rely on the information provided by Mr Eagle, as it was not shown that he had deliberately provided false information. The tribunal also found that Ms Eagle had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr Eagle had deliberately understated his income or overstated his expenses. The tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the Registrar's decision. No further appeal lies to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed 14 November 2011 be dismissed.

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.