FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| HUNTER & CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR | [2017] FamCAFC 259 |
| FAMILY LAW – LEAVE TO APPEAL – CHILD SUPPORT – where the Child Support Registrar sought to enforce a child support debt against the appellant – where a departure prohibition order had been made preventing the appellant’s departure from Australia – where the appellant responded to the enforcement application by challenging the validity of the child support debt – where the appellant asserted the enforcement application was erroneously commenced by Application in a Case – where the appellant contended that the certificate relied upon by the Child Support Registrar pursuant to s 116(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) was invalid – where the appellant contended that he was denied procedural fairness by the primary judge refusing his application for leave to issue a subpoena – where the appellant contended that the Child Support Registrar’s use of his tax file number was unauthorised – where the appellant contended that the Child Support Registrar was required to strictly prove delegations of power – where no error demonstrated – appeal dismissed. FAMILY LAW – LEAVE TO APPEAL – CHILD SUPPORT – CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY – where the appellant contended that the Child Support Scheme was unconstitutional – Luton v Lessels (2002) 210 CLR 333 – where the appellant contended that the child support debt liability was contrary to s 55 of the Constitution in circumstances where it imposed a tax – where the appellant contended that s 202(ga) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), being a provision which permits the exchange of information between government agencies, was unconstitutional as it was contained in legislation which imposed a tax – where the appellant contended that child support amounted to a “forced exaction on other than just terms” contrary to s 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution – where the appellant’s arguments are not made out – where appeal dismissed. |
| Australian Constitution ss 51(xxxi), 55 Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) ss 4, 150D Child Support (Registration and Collection Act) 1988 (Cth) ss 3, 72D, 72I, 72Q, 72T, 107A, 116 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24 Explanatory Memorandum, Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) 2000 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 22.09 |
| Child Support Registrar & Crabbeand Anor (2014) FLC 98-062 |
Continue reading Hunter & Child Support Registrar
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hunter & Child Support Registrar [2017] FamCAFC 259
- Case
- [2017] FamCAFC 259
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the appellant's challenge to the validity of the child support debt had merit, whether the Child Support Registrar's use of the tax file number was appropriate, and whether the Registrar was required to strictly prove delegations of power. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the Child Support Scheme was unconstitutional, with the appellant arguing that it amounted to a forced exaction on other than just terms contrary to section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution. The court found that the appellant's arguments were not substantiated and dismissed the appeal.
The court found no error in the primary judge's decision and dismissed the appeal. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the Child Support Registrar of and incidental to the appeal proceedings in the sum agreed or, failing agreement, as assessed within thirty days of the sum being agreed or assessed. This decision underscores the importance of the procedural fairness and constitutionality of the Child Support Scheme in Australia.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application for leave to appeal the orders made by Judge Cole on 9 February 2016, as amended on 29 February 2016, is dismissed.
2.
Mr Hunter pay the costs of the Child Support Registrar of and incidental to the appeal proceedings in the sum agreed or, failing agreement, as assessed within thirty (30) days of the sum being agreed or assessed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
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.