Hudson v Child Support Registrar
[2013] FMCA 59
•29 January 2013
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| HUDSON v CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR | [2013] FMCA 59 |
| CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal against departure prohibition order. |
| Applicant: | MR HUDSON |
| Respondent: | CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR |
| File Number: | PEG 290 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | Lucev FM |
| Hearing date: | 29 January 2013 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 29 January 2013 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 29 January 2013 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms E Bell |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Legal Services Division, Department of Human Services |
ORDERS
That the Notice of Appeal be dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Hudson v Child Support Registrar is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 290 of 2011
| MR HUDSON |
Applicant
And
| CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Edited extempore reasons)
There is before the Court an appeal, in relation to a departure prohibition order seeking variation of the departure prohibition order, filed on 11 October 2011. On that day the matter came before this Court on an urgent basis as Mr Hudson, the applicant, apparently had travel commitments the following day which were related to his professional work.
On 11 October 2011 the Court made the following orders:
1. The matter be adjourned to 10 am Western Standard Time tomorrow, with leave for both parties to appear by telephone, with the adjourned hearing to be listed at the request of the applicant, made by telephone to the deputy associate to Lucev FM by no later than 9.30 am Western Standard Time;
2. The matter otherwise be adjourned to a directions hearing on a date to be fixed;
3. Costs be reserved.
The matter now comes before the Court again. On 11 October 2011, the Court was advised that a departure authorisation certificate was granted to Mr Hudson. The departure prohibition order was subsequently revoked by a delegate of the Child Support Registrar[1] on 11 November 2011. The issuance of the departure authorisation certificate and the revocation of the departure prohibition order dispose of the subject matter of the appeal before the Court.
[1] “Registrar”
The subject matter of the appeal and the orders sought went to the issue of the applicant travelling at that time (October 2011). The orders sought by the applicant do, however, seek a further order restraining the Child Support Agency[2] or the Registrar from imposing any further departure prohibition orders on the applicant, which have the effect of restraining the applicant from travelling overseas in various circumstances. In the circumstances of this matter, it is appropriate in the Court’s view that there be an order dismissing the current Notice of Appeal filed on 11 October 2011 as the immediate cause for the issuance of that Notice of Appeal has been dealt with. Furthermore, the issue of a further restraint and injunction is not one which has arisen further in the application. It is only now, when the matter is brought back on by the Court for mention, that Mr Hudson says that he wishes to get the matter on foot to enable a further variation of the application and orders to be sought, and for the matter to be heard. There is no evidence before the Court and nothing which could indicate that there is any present intention on the part of the Agency or the Registrar to impose restrictions upon the applicant in respect of his future travel in relation to his business activities or his lecturing commitments with the University of Western Australia, those being the two subject areas in respect of which further orders were sought.
[2] “Agency”
In those circumstances, and bearing in mind that there is also a latent jurisdictional issue in respect of this Court’s jurisdiction to deal otherwise with the matter, it is appropriate that there be an order for dismissal of the current Notice of Appeal. The Court also bears in mind the age of the current Notice of Appeal, and that Mr Hudson has informed it that there have been further relevant orders in the Family Court since the disposition or the revocation of the departure prohibition order.
In those circumstances, and bearing in mind that there are apparently further orders of the Family Court, and the time which has elapsed since this application was dealt with, and also having regard to the latent jurisdictional issue, which has not been agitated as of yet on this application in any formal way, the Court considers it appropriate to dismiss the current Notice of Appeal. If it is thought appropriate to bring further proceedings in this Court, that can be done on a new application, having regard to the circumstances as they presently exist, whatever they might be.
With respect to costs, obviously Mr Hudson has incurred no professional costs in relation to the litigation itself as he has been self-represented at all times. Unless the Registrar presses an application for costs, the Court is of the view that there ought be no order as to costs, particularly in circumstances where once this appeal was brought, a departure authorisation certificate was issued very quickly to allow
Mr Hudson to go about his business as he sought to do, and the departure prohibition order was revoked so soon thereafter. It would seem in those circumstances that unless the Registrar presses otherwise, that it is not appropriate to make any order with respect to costs.
The Registrar does not press the matter of costs. There will therefore be orders in accordance with this Judgment.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Lucev FM
Deputy Associate:
Date: 1 February 2013
0
0
0