Horowitz and Burgess (Child support)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an objection lodged by the applicant, Mr Horowitz, concerning a decision made by the Registrar of Child Support regarding care percentages. The dispute centred on whether Mr Horowitz's objection had been lodged within the prescribed 28-day period following the notification of the Registrar's decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant's telephone contact with the Child Support Agency within 28 days of receiving the notice of decision constituted a valid objection. Secondly, if that contact did not amount to a valid objection, whether the applicant's subsequent written communication expressing "disagreement" with the objection decision was lodged within the statutory timeframe.

Deputy President Walsh and Presidential Member Sperling applied the principles of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) concerning the lodgement of objections. They reasoned that a telephone call, while expressing disagreement, did not meet the formal requirements of an objection as stipulated by the Act. The Tribunal found that the applicant's subsequent written communication, which clearly articulated a disagreement with the Registrar's decision, was lodged within the 28-day period for objecting to the *objection decision* itself. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and remitted the matter back to the Registrar with a direction to treat the applicant's written communication as a valid objection to the objection decision.