Eoi20 v Child Support Registrar - [2023] FedCFamC2G 745

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
EOI20 v Child Support Registrar [2023] FedCFamC2G 745

File number(s): LNG 9 of 2022

Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI

Date of judgment: 17 August 2023

Catchwords: CHILD SUPPORT – where applicant seeks leave to amend application to include addition ground – leave granted

Legislation:
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s43(2B)

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) pt 6A, s43(1)

Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) s 80

Cases cited:
Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (2010) 233 FCR 575

Wonson v Comcare [2020] FCAFC 76

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 16

Date of hearing: 8 June 2023

Place: Hobart

For the Applicant: In person

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr Hillyard, Sparke Helmore

For the Second Respondent: No appearance
ORDERS

LNG 9 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
EOI20

Applicant

AND:
CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

First Respondent

EOJ20

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE TAGLIERI

DATE OF ORDER:

17 AUGUST 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant is granted leave to rely on an additional ground of error of law, meaning that the appeal will be determined on the basis of two alleged errors of law only, being:
(a)Operation at s 43 of the Child Support Assessment Act 1989 (Cth) and whether or not information provided by a tax payer in the tax return is dispositive of the questions that arise under subparagraph (1)(a) to(f).
(b)That the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring the evidence of the Second Respondent as dispositive of the evidence pertaining to the considerations in s 43(1) of the Child Support Assessment Act 1989 (Cth), where there was evidence from the Applicant tending to contradict the evidence of the Second Respondent.

2.The Applicant, within 7 days of the date of these Orders, file and serve an Amended Notice of Appeal on the First Respondent, confined to the alleged errors referred to in Order 1 of these Orders.
3.Within 14 days of the date of these Orders, the First Respondent file and serve its submissions relied upon in respect of the ground referred to in Order 1(b) of these Orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in child support review proceedings
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judge Taglieri

This ruling is delivered late, but in accordance with Order 3 of the Orders I…

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 Eoi20 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: [2023] FedCFamC2G 745
Decision Date: 17 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Eoi20, filed an application against the Child Support Registrar, seeking leave to amend the application to include an additional ground. The nature of the dispute centred around the applicant's attempt to expand the scope of their application to include a new basis for their challenge against the Registrar's decision. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The court had to determine whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend their application to include an additional ground for challenging the Registrar's decision. This involved assessing the relevance and merit of the proposed additional ground, as well as considering the potential impact on the proceedings and the interests of the parties involved.

In granting leave for the applicant to amend their application, the court found that the proposed additional ground was relevant and had merit. The court noted that the amendment would not unduly delay or prejudice the proceedings, and that it was in the interests of justice to allow the amendment. The court also considered the need for finality in legal proceedings, but ultimately determined that the circumstances warranted granting leave for the amendment. The court's decision allowed the applicant to pursue the additional ground in their challenge against the Registrar's decision.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant be granted leave to amend their application to include the additional ground. The court provided specific directions for the filing of the amended application and set a timeline for the proceedings to continue. The decision enabled the applicant to address the additional ground in their challenge against the Registrar's decision, while ensuring that the proceedings remained fair and just for both parties.

Orders