Erickson and Erickson (Child support)

This matter concerned an appeal by the father, Mr. Erickson, against a child support assessment made by the Child Support Registrar. The dispute centred on the father's income, specifically whether certain payments received by him should be included in his assessable income for child support purposes. The appeal was heard by Magistrate P Jensen in the Magistrates Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether payments received by the father from his employer, described as "redundancy payments" and "long service leave payments," constituted "income" for the purposes of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth). The Court was required to determine if these payments were of a periodic or lump sum nature and, if lump sums, whether they fell within the exceptions to the general rule that lump sums are not assessable income.

Magistrate Jensen reasoned that the *Child Support (Assessment) Act* defines income broadly. The Court considered the nature of the payments, noting that while labelled "redundancy" and "long service leave," they were essentially payments for accrued entitlements that were paid out upon termination of employment. The Court applied the principle that payments in lieu of notice or for accrued entitlements are generally considered income for child support purposes, even if received as a lump sum, as they represent a substitute for ordinary income that would otherwise have been earned. The Court found that these payments were not capital in nature but rather represented a form of deferred remuneration.

The Court ordered that the child support assessment be varied to include the redundancy and long service leave payments as assessable income for the father.