GJBM and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

Case [2025] ARTA 1878

GJBM and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2025] ARTA 1878 (22 September 2025)

Applicant/s:  GJBM

Respondent:  Child Support Registrar

Tribunal Numbers:              2024/6342, 2024/9648, 2024/9649

Tribunal:Senior Member A Suthers (second review)

Place:Perth

Date:22 September 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

Statement made on 22 September 2025 at 7:18pm

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB) –16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth).

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – Review of decision not to revoke Departure Prohibition Order – review of refusal to extend time to lodge applications for review of other decisions – applications based on erroneous construction of sections of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth).

LEGISLATION

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024 (Cth)

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024 (Cth)

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)

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

Child Support (Registration & Collection) Regulations 2018 (Cth)

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)

CASES

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541

David and High Court of Australia [2009] AATA 448

Doyle v Chief of Staff (1982) 42 ALR 283

Englezos v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2023] FCA 31

ENT19 v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] HCA 18

Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176; (1984) 3 FCR 344

Lucic v Nolan [1982] FCA 217

Naboush and Child Support Registrar [2014] AATA 930

NLLQ and Child Support Registrar [2023] AATA 867

Onder & Child Support Registrar and Sari (No. 2) [2011] FMCAfam 430

O’Neill and Child Support Registrar [2010] AATA 545

Paino and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 951

Ralkon v Aboriginal Development Commission (1982) 43 ALR 535

Re Commonwealth of Australia; Ex Parte Marks [2000] HCA 67

Shahani and Child Support Registrar [2014] AATA 312

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Nil

Statement of Reasons

SUMMARY

  1. The Applicant is the father of Mr J, who was born 10 March 2003. The Applicant resides in Hong Kong.

  2. Since 2012, Mr J’s mother, Ms A, has been habitually resident with Mr J in Australia.

  3. On 2 March 2017, Ms A applied to Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) for registration of a child maintenance liability for Mr J arising under a court order made by consent in the United Kingdom in 2009 (2009 Order). That application was accepted and the liability arising under the 2009 Order became payable to Child Support. The Applicant became the paying parent.

  4. On 27 June 2018, Child Support issued a Departure Prohibition Order (initial DPO) against the Applicant. The effect of such an order is to prevent overseas travel from Australia where a person has an outstanding…

Continue reading GJBM and Child Support Registrar (Child support second revie...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
GJBM and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2025] ARTA 1878
Case
[2025] ARTA 1878
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of GJBM and Child Support Registrar, the applicant, GJBM, sought a review of the decision not to revoke a Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) and the refusal to extend the time to lodge applications for review of other decisions. These decisions related to child support matters under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) heard the applications on 22 July 2025, with GJBM represented by Mr A Virk and the Registrar represented by Mr A Taverniti. The primary legal issues for the Tribunal were whether the DPO should be revoked because GJBM satisfied certain conditions under the Act, specifically whether he no longer had a child support liability, had made satisfactory arrangements to discharge his liability, if the liability was completely irrecoverable, or if revocation was otherwise desirable.

The Tribunal first examined the jurisdictional limits imposed by the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), which restricted the Tribunal's review to the decision not to revoke the DPO and not to the merits of Child Support's calculation or the decision to issue the DPO. GJBM argued that since the child in question had been an Australian resident since 2012, Child Support was precluded from registering the 2009 Order. He contended that the absence of a Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Order (REMO) from the United Kingdom to Australia meant that Child Support could not enforce the 2009 Order. The Tribunal found that while GJBM's interpretation of the Act was based on certain sections, it did not sufficiently address the jurisdictional constraints and the specific conditions under which the DPO could be revoked.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that GJBM's arguments did not meet the statutory criteria for revoking the DPO. It found that GJBM's contentions regarding the enforcement of the 2009 Order and Child Support's mandate were not sufficient to satisfy the conditions outlined in the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision not to revoke the DPO and refused to extend the time for GJBM to lodge further applications for review.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

By a decision of 23 October 2024, the Tribunal decided to refuse to extend time to review both objection decisions (first review decisions). The Applicant then sought second review of the first review decisions. I heard the DPO review and the second review applications on 22 July 2025, by AVL. The Applicant appeared, represented by Mr A Virk, a lay advocate. The Respondent was represented by Mr A Taverniti, solicitor. CONSIDERATIONREVOCATION OF THE DPO The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this aspect of the application pursuant to s 72T of the R&C Act.[3][3] For simplicity, further reference to legislative provisions in this statement of reasons will be to provisions of the R&C Act, unless otherwise stated. However, as the Applicant accepts, that jurisdiction does not extend in this matter to considering the merits of:(a)Child Support’s calculation of the maintenance liability, save to the extent that the Applicant can demonstrate that he has no liability, so as to engage s 17I(1)(a); or(b)Child Support’s decision to issue the DPO. That is because, pursuant to s 12 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act), read in conjunction with s 72T, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to considering the decision before it, which in this respect is the decision not to revoke the DPO. The issues in respect of this aspect of the applications are whether the DPO must or should be revoked because the Applicant satisfies subsection 72I, in that, relevantly:(a)He no longer has a child support liability, pursuant to s 72l(1)(a); or(b)He has made satisfactory arrangements to wholly discharge his child support liability, pursuant to s 71l(1)(b); or(c)The child support liability is completely irrecoverable, pursuant to s 72l(1)(c); or (d)It is desirable to do so, pursuant to s 72l(3).Does the Applicant have a child support liability? In the FCFCOA appeal, the Applicant contended that Child Support had no statutory mandate to collect maintenance in respect of an adult, and that any liability raised prior to Mr J’s 18th birthday was settled on a final basis when the initial DPO was revoked. The argument proceeded that Child Support was prevented by estoppel from reversing the final settlement in respect of the initial DPO or had waived its right to do so. Those arguments were rejected by the dismissal of the appeal. The Applicant no longer agitates those arguments. Before me, the Applicant argues that, because Ms A was an Australian resident from 2012, Child Support was precluded from registering the 2009 Order. For the purposes of understanding his argument in that regard, certain uncontroversial facts are relevant:(a)There was no Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Order (REMO) from the United Kingdom to Australia in respect of the 2009 Order; and(b)As stated above, Ms A has been habitually resident in Australia since 2012. The Applicant relies on an interpretation of various sections of the R&C Act to support his contention. Firstly s 4 provides that, relevantly:overseas maintenance liability’ means a liability that arises under:(a) a maintenance order made by a judicial authority of a reciprocating jurisdiction; or(b) a maintenance agreement registered by a judicial or administrative authority of a reciprocating jurisdiction; or(c) a maintenance assessment issued by an administrative authority of a reciprocating jurisdiction.resident of a reciprocating jurisdiction’ means a person who is habitually resident in the reciprocating jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

I heard the DPO review and the second review applications on 22 July 2025, by AVL. The Applicant appeared, represented by Mr A Virk, a lay advocate. The Respondent was represented by Mr A Taverniti, solicitor. CONSIDERATIONREVOCATION OF THE DPO The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this aspect of the application pursuant to s 72T of the R&C Act.[3][3] For simplicity, further reference to legislative provisions in this statement of reasons will be to provisions of the R&C Act, unless otherwise stated. However, as the Applicant accepts, that jurisdiction does not extend in this matter to considering the merits of:(a)Child Support’s calculation of the maintenance liability, save to the extent that the Applicant can demonstrate that he has no liability, so as to engage s 17I(1)(a); or(b)Child Support’s decision to issue the DPO. That is because, pursuant to s 12 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act), read in conjunction with s 72T, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to considering the decision before it, which in this respect is the decision not to revoke the DPO. The issues in respect of this aspect of the applications are whether the DPO must or should be revoked because the Applicant satisfies subsection 72I, in that, relevantly:(a)He no longer has a child support liability, pursuant to s 72l(1)(a); or(b)He has made satisfactory arrangements to wholly discharge his child support liability, pursuant to s 71l(1)(b); or(c)The child support liability is completely irrecoverable, pursuant to s 72l(1)(c); or (d)It is desirable to do so, pursuant to s 72l(3).Does the Applicant have a child support liability? In the FCFCOA appeal, the Applicant contended that Child Support had no statutory mandate to collect maintenance in respect of an adult, and that any liability raised prior to Mr J’s 18th birthday was settled on a final basis when the initial DPO was revoked. The argument proceeded that Child Support was prevented by estoppel from reversing the final settlement in respect of the initial DPO or had waived its right to do so. Those arguments were rejected by the dismissal of the appeal. The Applicant no longer agitates those arguments. Before me, the Applicant argues that, because Ms A was an Australian resident from 2012, Child Support was precluded from registering the 2009 Order. For the purposes of understanding his argument in that regard, certain uncontroversial facts are relevant:(a)There was no Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Order (REMO) from the United Kingdom to Australia in respect of the 2009 Order; and(b)As stated above, Ms A has been habitually resident in Australia since 2012. The Applicant relies on an interpretation of various sections of the R&C Act to support his contention. Firstly s 4 provides that, relevantly:overseas maintenance liability’ means a liability that arises under:(a) a maintenance order made by a judicial authority of a reciprocating jurisdiction; or(b) a maintenance agreement registered by a judicial or administrative authority of a reciprocating jurisdiction; or(c) a maintenance assessment issued by an administrative authority of a reciprocating jurisdiction.resident of a reciprocating jurisdiction’ means a person who is habitually resident in the reciprocating jurisdiction.