Humphries & Berry (SSAT Appeal)

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HUMPHRIES & BERRY (SSAT APPEAL) [2008] FMCAfam 409

CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal from SSAT – duty of disclosure – consequences of lack of disclosure.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, ss.41, 42
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, s.110B

Luton v Lessels (2002) 210 CLR 333
Oriolo (1985) FLC 91-653
Rose v Bridges (1997) 79 FCR 378

Applicant: MR HUMPHRIES

Respondent: MS BERRY

File Number: BRC13622 of 2007

Judgment of: Slack FM

Hearing date: 25 February 2008

Date of Last Submission: 25 February 2008

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 22 April 2008

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared on his own behalf

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Nicole Smith

Solicitors for the Respondent: Douglas Law

ORDERS

1. That the Appeal from the Decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal filed on 16 November 2007 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Humphries & Berry is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRC13622 of 2007

MR HUMPHRIES

Applicant

And

MS BERRY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this appeal from the decision of Social Security Appeals Tribunal (the “SSAT”) dated 19 October 2007, the appellant (conducting the appeal in person) relied on three grounds in the Notice of Appeal, namely that the SSAT:

   “1.    Plucked figures from the air without fact or proof.

   2.     Wrongfully used evidence.

   3.    Incorrect calculations and speculation of monies.”

2. In his affidavit filed in the proceedings and during oral submissions, it became clearer that the appeal related to the manner in which the SSAT determined the appellant’s child support income for the relevant period for the purposes of the child support assessment.

Background

1. The appellant is the payer parent in this matter.

2. The child support assessment is for the child M born in 2002.

3. M is predominantly cared for by her mother (the respondent to the appeal).

4. The following facts relied upon by the SSAT do not appear to be in dispute.

5. On 9 January 2007, the respondent/payee made an application seeking an unspecified increase in the amount of child support payable by

   
   

   Mr Humphries on the grounds of his income, earning capacity, property and financial resources.  The assessment applying at the time of application required Mr Humphries to pay the minimum $320 per year.  That assessment was based on 2005/2006 taxable income of $98 for Mr Humphries.  The assessment applied from 1 January 2007 until 31 March 2008.

6. On 22 February 2007, a Senior Case Officer varied the child support assessment for the period 1 September 2006 to 31 March 2008.  The child support income amount for Mr Humphries increased to $64,855.  As a result of that decision the CSA varied the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Humphries to $9,038 for the period

   
   1 September 2006

   to 31 March 2008.

7. The appellant lodged an objection to the decision which was disallowed on 16 May 2007.

8. The appellant appealed to the…