Godfrey and Godfrey - [2009] FMCAfam 626

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GODFREY & GODFREY

[2009] FMCAfam 626

CHILD SUPPORT – Application for departure order – future child support – application for lump sum.

Child Support (Assessment Act) 1989, ss.124, 117

Gyselman & Gyselman [1982] FLC 92-279
Hides & Hatton [1997] 21Fam LR 855
Bendeich & Bendeich [1993] FLC 92-355
Prpic & Prpic [1995] FLC 92-574
Dwyer v McGuire [1993] FLC 92-420
In the Marriage of Bolton [1992] 15FAMLR 615

Applicant:

MS GODFREY

Respondent:

MR GODFREY

File Number:

HBC1143 of 2008

Judgment of:

Baker FM

Hearing date:

28 April 2009

Date of Last Submission:

28 April 2009

Delivered at:

Hobart

Delivered on:

26 June 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Fitzgerald

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Smith

Solicitors for the Respondent:

PWB Lawyers

ORDERS

The application for a departure of an administrative assessment of child support for the periods 30 September 2008 to 30 November 2009 and
1 December 2009 to 30 June 2010 be dismissed.
For the period commencing 1 July 2010 there be a departure from an administrative assessment of Child Support for the child, [X] born in 1993, such that the respondent father pay child support for the child in the sum of $618.67 per month, such period to conclude upon the following terminating events:
(a)Subject to paragraph (c) herein, the child turns 18;
(b)The child obtains full-time remunerative employment before her 18^th birthday in which case the period concludes upon the commencement of that employment;
(c)Upon completion of her secondary education.
The application for payment of child support by means other than periodic be dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
HOBART

HBC1143 of 2008

MS GODFREY

Applicant

And

MR GODFREY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an amended application of the wife filed 8 April 2009. Pursuant to s.117 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (“the Act”) she seeks a departure order from the administrative assessment of child support payable in the sum of $806.92 per month for the child [X], born in 1993, in that the child support be set at $618.67 per month payable from 1 September 2008 until the child reaches the age of 18 years or completes her secondary education, whichever is the latter.
Further, the applicant seeks that pursuant to s.124 of the Act, an order be made in substitution of the periodic payments, of a lump sum payment in the sum of $21,034.78, or such other sum as ordered by the Court.
The response of the husband filed 27 January 2009 seeks that the application be dismissed.

Issues and evidence

The applicant relies on section 117(2)(c)(i) and (ia) to support the application. It was her case that a departure order will result in certainty to her. The applicant alleged that…

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 Godfrey and Godfrey 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: [2009] FMCAfam 626
Decision Date: 26 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Godfrey and Godfrey involved the parents of a child born in 1993, who were contesting the administrative assessment of child support. The father sought a departure from the assessment, arguing it was incorrect and unfair, and requested a different method of payment. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The father contended that the administrative assessment of child support was flawed and sought an adjustment to the amount he was required to pay. He also argued that the child should be supported through a method other than periodic payments.

The court was required to determine whether the administrative assessment of child support was accurate and whether there was a valid reason to depart from it. Additionally, the court needed to consider the father's request for a different payment method, which the administrative system did not permit. The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and the statutory framework governing child support assessments. The court found that the administrative assessment was generally correct but required adjustment for the period commencing 1 July 2010. The court accepted that the father's request for an alternative payment method was not supported by the legislative framework.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for a departure from the assessment for certain periods and granted a departure for the period commencing 1 July 2010, setting a new payment amount. The court also dismissed the application for an alternative payment method. No order was made as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for a departure of an administrative assessment of child support for the periods 30 September 2008 to 30 November 2009 and

1 December 2009 to 30 June 2010 be dismissed.

For the period commencing 1 July 2010 there be a departure from an administrative assessment of Child Support for the child, [X] born in 1993, such that the respondent father pay child support for the child in the sum of $618.67 per month, such period to conclude upon the following terminating events:

(a) Subject to paragraph (c) herein, the child turns 18;

(b) The child obtains full-time remunerative employment before her 18th birthday in which case the period concludes upon the commencement of that employment;

The application for payment of child support by means other than periodic be dismissed.

There be no order as to costs.

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.