Farrens & Farrens

[2010] FMCAfam 325

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FARRENS & FARRENS (SSAT APPEAL) [2010] FMCAfam 325

CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal from decision of SSAT – findings of fact and whether error of law established.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988

Tasman & Tisdall [2008] FMCAfam 126
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Gyselman & Gyselman [1992] FLC92-279
Mee & Ferguson [1986] FLC91-716

Applicant: MR FARRENS

Respondent: MS FARRENS

File Number: BRC 1679 of 2009

Judgment of: Slack FM

Hearing date: 11 March 2010

Date of Last Submission: 11 March 2010

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 18 June 2010

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Laws

Solicitors for the Applicant: Reardon & Associates Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Galloway

Solicitors for the Respondent: Wellners Lawyers

ORDERS

1. That the Appeal from the Decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal dated 28 September 2009 be allowed in part.

2. That the following orders be in substitution for the determination of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

3. That from 20 December 2008 to 30 May 2009 the annual rate of child support payable by the applicant is to be $13,468.

4. That from 1 June 2009 to 31 December 2009 the annual rate of child support payable by the applicant is to be $14,248.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRC 1679 of 2009

MR FARRENS

Applicant

And

MS FARRENS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (hereafter “the SSAT”) dated 28 September 2009.

2. The grounds of appeal are:

   1.     The Tribunal, by:

   a.      disallowing the payee/appellant’s claims for the following weekly expenditures:

   (i)     $47 for private medical insurance (without which the disabled payees medical costs would be enormous);

   (ii)     $12 for internet expenses (as the means by which the disabled payee met and continues to meet his bills);

   (iii)    $26 house and contents insurance;

   (iv)    $14 for part of the payees total claimed incurred out-of-pocket costs of medical treatment; and

   b.      by failing to address itself to evidence before the SSAT of the respondent’s drawings in the 2008-2009 financial year from the business and in so doing has failed to address evidence in relation to the level of income of the respondent in the 2008-2009 financial year has erred in law in:

   (i)     failing to take account of relevant considerations; and/or

   (ii)     failing to place any, or proper weight upon relevant considerations; and/or

   (iii)    taking account of irrelevant considerations; and/or

   (iv)    coming to a determination which no reasonable decision maker in the same circumstances would have reached upon the same facts; and/or

   (v) failing to state or give any, or any adequate, reasons for its decisions to disallow particular expenses where corresponding liabilities were allowed;

   and which error or errors caused the Tribunal to misdirect itself in law…