Gresham and Washford (Child support)

This matter concerned an appeal by Gresham against a decision of the Child Support Registrar to refuse to credit certain payments made to Washford, the payee, towards Gresham's child support liability. The dispute centred on whether these payments, made directly to Washford rather than through the Child Support Agency, should be recognised as satisfying Gresham's obligations under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). The appeal was heard by Ms J Cuthbert, Member.

The primary legal issue before the Member was whether the payments made by Gresham to Washford constituted "prescribed payments" within the meaning of the Act, and if so, whether the Registrar had correctly exercised her discretion under section 71D of the Act to refuse to credit those payments. This involved determining whether there was a mutual intention between the parties that the payments would be in satisfaction of the child support liability, and whether the payments were made in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

The Member affirmed the Registrar's decision, finding that there was no evidence of a mutual intention that the payments made by Gresham to Washford were to be in satisfaction of the child support liability. The payments were made directly to Washford without any agreement or understanding that they would discharge Gresham's statutory obligations. Consequently, the payments did not meet the criteria for prescribed payments, and the Registrar was therefore justified in exercising her discretion under section 71D to refuse to credit them.