Ford and Child Support Registrar - [2007] AATA 1242

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1242
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No V2006/16

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re JOHN PATRICK FORD

Applicant

And

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr John Handley, Senior Member
Date23 April 2007
PlaceMelbourne

Decision
1. The decisions made by the respondent as contained in its letters of 2 February 2006 and 29 March 2006 are affirmed.

2. The email of 6 September 2005 which was committed to paper and which was located during the currency of these proceedings is an exempt document and is not be disclosed pursuant to s 37(1)(c) and s 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act1982.

3. These proceedings are declared frivolous or vexatious pursuant to s 42B of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the application should be dismissed and IT IS DIRECTED that the applicant must not, without leave of the Tribunal, make any subsequent freedom of information applications to the Tribunal of a kind which concerns H and / or Mr Epstein.

(Sgd) John Handley
Senior Member

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL    )
  )                 No. V2006/16
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION     )
Re :JOHN FORD

Applicant

And :CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Respondent
C O R R I G E N D U M
Tribunal :Mr John Handley, Senior Member
Date :23 April 2007
Place :Melbourne

Pursuant to s 35(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 I DIRECT BY ORDER –

The name of the female person (‘the person’) referred to in paragraph 3 of the decision and paragraph 1 of the reasons for decision be prohibited from publication.

The name of the person wherever it appears within the decision and the reasons for decision shall be deleted – whether identifying her by her first or last name or both – and in substitution the code ‘H’ shall be inserted.

The decision and reasons for decision in the form delivered on 19 April 2007 shall be:
(i)prohibited from publication; and
(ii)be known only to the legal advisers of the respondent, the applicant and members and staff of the Tribunal and employees of Auscript.

Parts of the reasons for decision published on 19 April 2007 shall be deleted as follows:
(a)paragraph 15 – the second last sentence commencing with the word ‘The’ and concluding with the name of the person;
(b)paragraph 107 – the first sentence commencing with the word ‘The’ and concluding with the name of the person;
(c)paragraph 111 – part of the second sentence commencing with the word ‘who’ and concluding with the word ‘guilty’.

In lieu of the above words deleted from the reasons for decision there shall be substituted the words ‘deleted by Direction made on 23 April 2007’.

The evidence before the Tribunal, both oral and documented (including the recording of the oral evidence upon transcript) where the name of the person was spoken or written, shall be prohibited from disclosure except to the persons referred to in paragraph 3(ii) above.
(Sgd) John Handley
Senior Member

FREEDOM OF…

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 Ford and 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: [2007] AATA 1242
Decision Date: 23 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ford and Child Support Registrar, the applicant sought a review of decisions made by the respondent concerning child support payments. The case was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant, Ford, was contesting the decisions made by the Child Support Registrar, dated 2 February 2006 and 29 March 2006, and also sought disclosure of an email dated 6 September 2005 under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decisions of the Child Support Registrar were lawful and whether the email in question should be disclosed to the applicant.

The Tribunal considered the legislative framework governing child support decisions and the exemptions available under the Freedom of Information Act. The Tribunal found that the decisions of the Child Support Registrar were consistent with the applicable legislation and thus affirmed those decisions. Regarding the email, the Tribunal determined that it constituted an exempt document under section 37(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act, which pertains to personal information that could invade an individual's privacy. Consequently, the email was not to be disclosed to the applicant.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the proceedings to be frivolous or vexatious under section 42B of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had abused the process by pursuing an unfounded application. As a result, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was prohibited from making any subsequent freedom of information applications concerning the Child Support Registrar or the individual named in the email without leave from the Tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decisions made by the respondent as contained in its letters of 2 February 2006 and 29 March 2006 are affirmed.

2. The email of 6 September 2005 which was committed to paper and which was located during the currency of these proceedings is an exempt document and is not be disclosed pursuant to s 37(1)(c) and s 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

3. These proceedings are declared frivolous or vexatious pursuant to s 42B of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the application should be dismissed and IT IS DIRECTED that the applicant must not, without leave of the Tribunal, make any subsequent freedom of information applications to the Tribunal of a kind which concerns H and / or Mr Epstein.

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.