Hall and Child Support Registrar (Child support) - [2019] AATA 115

Hall and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2019] AATA 115 (11 February 2019)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2017/5601
Re:Gary Hall
APPLICANT

AndChild Support Registrar
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member R West

Date:11 February 2019
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision of the Child Support Registrar of 4 September 2017 to refuse to revoke a departure prohibition order against the Applicant made under s 72D of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 on 1 June 2016.
[sgd]........................................................................
Member R West
Catchwords
Child Support Liability – departure prohibition order – revocation – decision affirmed
Legislation
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Cases
O’Neill and Child Support Registrar [2010] AATA 237
O’Neill and Child Support Registrar [2010] AATA 545
Whittaker v Child Support Registrar [2010] FCA 43
Onder and Child Support Registrar and Sari (No.2)(2011) FLR 345
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member R West
11 February 2019

This is an application under s 72T(1) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Act). The Applicant seeks a review of the decision of the Child Support Registrar (the Registrar) of 4 September 2017 to refuse to revoke a departure prohibition order (DPO) made under s 72D of the Act on 1 June 2016 which prohibited the departure of the Applicant from Australia.
The Tribunal conducted a hearing of the application on 21 November 2018. The Applicant was represented by his partner, Ms Lena Hall, and the Respondent by Ms Belinda Lewis, a solicitor from the Department of Human Services. The Respondent lodged a copy of all the material documents in compliance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the T-documents).
In reviewing the Registrar’s decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar under s 72T of the Act. There are two relevant provisions of s 72I under which the Registrar may revoke a DPO.
Under s 72I(1) the Registrar must revoke a DPO in respect of a person if any one of the three following conditions are satisfied:
a.the person no longer has a child support liability or carer liability; or
b.the person has a child support or carer liability, but arrangements satisfactory to the Registrar have been made for the liability to be wholly discharged; or
c.the person has a child support or carer liability, but the Registrar is satisfied that the liability is completely irrecoverable.
The Respondent tendered in evidence a certificate issued under s 116(2) of the Act[1] certifying that at 5 October 2018 the Applicant had a child support debt of $25,968.11 and penalties of $2,514.83. The Applicant conceded that this represented his current child support liability but indicated that he intended to dispute the calculation of the liability in pending court proceedings. The Applicant conceded that he had made no arrangements with the Registrar to discharge the liability and accepted that the liability was not completely irrecoverable. In light of these concessions I am satisfied that none of the conditions specified…

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 Hall and Child Support Registrar (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: [2019] AATA 115
Decision Date: 11 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Hall for the revocation of a departure prohibition order (DPO) made by the Child Support Registrar. The DPO prevented Hall from leaving Australia without the Registrar's permission, due to outstanding child support liabilities. Hall sought to have this order revoked.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether Hall had discharged his onus of proving that the DPO should be revoked. This required the Tribunal to assess whether Hall had made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of his outstanding child support debt, or whether there were other compelling reasons to revoke the order.

The Tribunal affirmed the Registrar's decision to make the DPO. It found that Hall had not discharged his onus of proof. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Hall had made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of his substantial child support debt, nor were there any other compelling circumstances presented that would justify the revocation of the DPO. The existing arrangements were deemed insufficient to address the significant arrears.

Orders