Greasley and Hunnisett (Child support) - [2021] AATA 4234

Greasley and Hunnisett (Child support) [2021] AATA 4234 (1 September 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/BC020843
APPLICANT:  Mr Greasley
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Hunnisett

TRIBUNAL:Member Y Webb
DECISION DATE: 1 September 2021
DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of the parents – cost of educating the child – no ground for departure established – refuse to make determination – s98F Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 – decision under review affirmed

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.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

This review relates to the issue of child support regarding the two children of Mr Greasley and Ms Hunnisett. The children are now aged 14 and 10. Services Australia (“Child Support Agency”) records state that since 8 October 2019 the children have been in the 63% care of Ms Hunnisett and 37% care of Mr Greasley.
The child support case commenced on 12 May 2014 and has been collectable by the Child Support Agency since 29 December 2017.
On 28 July 2020, Mr Greasley applied to the Child Support Agency for a change to the administrative assessment on the basis of Reasons 8A and 8B. At the time of the objection process Ms Hunnisett raised Reason 3.
At the time of Mr Greasley’s application for a change to the assessment a previous change of assessment decision was still in place; that was a decision of [Member 1] made on 2 October 2019. She decided that for the period 1 August 2018 to 31 October 2020 Ms Hunnisett’s adjusted taxable income would be varied to $33,761 per annum.
In relation to Mr Greasley’s new application for a change to the assessment on 28 July 2020 the original decision maker (Mr [A]) decided on 2 October 2020 that Reason 8A had been established but that no other grounds had been established. The original decision maker determined that the decision already in place should be ended on 30 June 2020 and that from 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2022 Ms Hunnisett’s adjusted taxable income should be varied to $104,823 per annum.
Ms Hunnisett objected to that decision and on 9 February 2021 an objections officer allowed her objection and set aside the original decision maker’s decision. The objections officer decided that upon the expiry of the decision of [Member 1] the child support assessment would revert to the administrative formula.
On 19 February 2021 Mr Greasley requested a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The Tribunal issued written directions on 15 June 2021.
Mr Greasley and Ms Hunnisett attended the hearing by way of a telephone conference on 12 August 2021. Mr Greasley gave evidence on affirmation and…

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 Greasley and Hunnisett (Child support) 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: [2021] AATA 4234
Decision Date: 1 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a departure determination under the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) brought before Member Y Webb of the Child Support Special Powers Division. The applicants sought to depart from the child support assessment based on the income, property, and financial resources of the parents, as well as the cost of educating the child.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the circumstances of the case met the threshold for a departure determination under section 98F of the Act. Specifically, the court had to consider if the existing assessment was unjust or inequitable having regard to the grounds raised by the applicants, including the financial positions of the parties and the educational expenses for the child.

The Member considered the evidence presented regarding the parties' financial circumstances and the child's educational costs. The court applied the principles established in child support departure jurisprudence, which require a high threshold to be met before an assessment can be altered. After reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Member found that no ground for departure had been established. The court concluded that the existing assessment remained just and equitable in the circumstances.

Consequently, the application for a departure determination was refused, and the decision under review was affirmed.

Orders