Henriques & Hatzis (SSAT Appeal) - [2014] FCCA 1194

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HENRIQUES & HATZIS & ANOR (SSAT APPEAL)

[2014] FCCA 1194

Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal from the SSAT – question of law – nature of jurisdictional error – denial of procedural fairness – allegation applicant denied opportunity to comment on adverse material – adverse material relates to accounting material of company employing applicant – applicant directed to produce material in question – applicant found by Tribunal to be lacking credibility – no breach of natural justice found – costs.

Legislation:

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, ss.4(2), 25, 100, 117(2), 117(4), 117(7B), 161

Child Support (Registration & Collection) Act 1988, ss.80, 88, 89, 105, 110B, 110E, 110F, 110G
Family Law Act 1975, s.117

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407

Repatriation Commission v Owens (1996) 70 ALJR 904
Neal v Secretary, Department of Transport (1980) 3 ALD 97
Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27
Blackwood Hodge (Australia) Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (No 2) (1980) 33 ALD 38
Htun v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2001) 194 ALR 244
LDME & JMA [2007] FMCAfam 712
Apthorpe v Repatriation Commission (1987) 13 ALD 656
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs: Ex Parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 198 ALR 59
Collector of Customs v Pressure Tankers Pty Ltd and Pozzolanic Enterprise Pty Ltd [1993] 43 FCR 280
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2006) 228 CLR 152
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs: ex-parte Lam (2003) 195 ALR 502
Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR [2011] HCA 1
P v Child Support Registrar [2013] FCA 1312

Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1963) 113 CLR 475
Briese & Briese (1986) FLC 91-713
Luciano & Luciano (unreported) Family Court (O’Ryan J delivered 8 May 2000)
Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323

Attorney-General (NSW) v Quinn (1990) 170 CLR 1
Comcare v Moon [2003] FCA 569
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2001) 204 CLR 82
Browne v Green (2002) 29 Fam LR 428

Applicant:

MR HENRIQUES

First Respondent:

MS HATZIS

Second Respondent:

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

File Number:

ADC 3094 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Brown

Hearing date:

7 May 2014

Date of Last Submission:

7 May 2014

Delivered at:

Adelaide

Delivered on:

30 June 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Lazarevich

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Sydney G Maidment Lawyers

The First Respondent (Ms Hatzis):

In Person

Counsel for the Second Respondent (Child Support Registrar):

Mr Palfrey

Solicitors for the Second Respondent:

Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS

The Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed on 27 August 2013 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Henriques & Hatzis & Anor (SSAT Appeal) is approved pursuant to s.110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988

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 Henriques & Hatzis (SSAT Appeal) 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: [2014] FCCA 1194
Decision Date: 30 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tasmania from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). The appellants, Henriques and Hatzis, sought to challenge the SSAT's determination regarding child support.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the SSAT had erred in its assessment of child support obligations. Specifically, the Court was required to consider the SSAT's interpretation and application of the relevant child support legislation in reaching its decision.

Judge Brown dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the SSAT's determination. The Court's reasoning focused on the evidence before the SSAT and the statutory framework governing child support assessments. The Court concluded that the SSAT had properly considered all relevant factors and applied the law correctly, leading to the dismissal of the Notice of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed on 27 August 2013 is dismissed.

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.