Hubane and Hubane (Child support) - [2022] AATA 2378

Hubane and Hubane (Child support) [2022] AATA 2378 (12 June 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/SC022249 & 2021/PC022294
APPLICANT:  Ms Hubane & Mr Hubane
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mr Hubane & Ms Hubane

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member R Ellis
DECISION DATE: 12 June 2022
DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

for the period from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 the annual rate payable by Mr Hubane is increased by $1,026 being his half contribution towards the costs associated with [Child 1]’s foot injury and wrist injury;
for the period from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 the annual rate payable by Mr Hubane is increased by $539 being his half contribution towards the costs associated with [Child 2]’s wrist injury; and
for the period from 1 April 2021 to 28 February 2023 the annual rate payable by Mr Hubane is increased by $1,245 being his half contribution towards [Child 2]’s orthodontic costs.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – whether there was a ground for departure - costs of special needs significantly affect the cost of maintaining the child – decision to depart - decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted 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 is about whether or not there should be a departure from the administrative assessment of child support.
Ms Hubane and Mr Hubane are the parents of [Child 1] (born February 2005) and [Child 2] (born June 2008). There has been a child support assessment in place since 5 March 2019 with collection by the Child Support Agency from 7 May 2019. Mr Hubane is the parent liable to pay child support under the assessment.
The following administrative assessments are under consideration:
·     for the period from 9 October 2020 to 24 June 2021 Mr Hubane was assessed to pay an annual rate of $24,202 based on a 2019-20 adjusted taxable income of $126,732 for Mr Hubane and a 2020-21 estimated adjusted taxable income of $60,792 for Ms Hubane;
·     for the period from 25 June 2021 to 30 June 2021 Mr Hubane was assessed to pay an annual rate of $26,494 based on a 2019-20 adjusted taxable income of $126,732 for Mr Hubane and a 2020-21 estimated adjusted taxable income of $60,792 for Ms Hubane (the increase in the annual rate was due to [Child 2] turning 13 years of age); and
·     for the period from 1 July 2021 to 30 November 2021 Mr Hubane was assessed to pay an annual rate of $21,252 based on a 2019-20 adjusted taxable income of $126,732 for Mr Hubane and a 2019-20 adjusted taxable income of $134,409 for Ms Hubane
On…

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.

Continue reading Hubane and Hubane (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Hubane and Hubane (Child support) [2022] AATA 2378
Case: [2022] AATA 2378
Decision Date: 12 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by the father, Mr. Hubane, for a departure determination under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the costs associated with the child's special needs significantly affected the cost of maintaining the child, thereby providing a ground for departure from the usual child support assessment. The application was heard by Registrar Ellis SM.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine whether the specific circumstances of the child's special needs met the threshold for a departure from the standard child support assessment. This required an assessment of whether the costs incurred by the father in maintaining the child due to these special needs were so significant as to warrant an adjustment to the assessed child support amount.

Registrar Ellis SM considered the evidence presented regarding the child's special needs and the associated expenses. The Registrar applied the principles outlined in the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*, focusing on the requirement that the costs must "significantly affect the cost of maintaining the child." After reviewing the evidence, the Registrar found that the threshold for departure had been met.

Consequently, the Registrar set aside the original decision and substituted it with a new decision to depart from the assessment. The specific orders regarding the revised child support amount were not detailed in the provided text.

Orders