Jessop and Letchford (Child support) - [2022] AATA 1710

Jessop and Letchford (Child support) [2022] AATA 1710 (4 April 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2021/PC022559
APPLICANT:  Mr Jessop
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Letchford

TRIBUNAL:Member A Schiwy
DECISION DATE: 4 April 2022
DECISION:

The tribunal varies the decision under review and decides that:

· Mr Jessop’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $75,000 from 12 March 2021 to 31 December 2025; and
· Ms Letchford’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $37,000 from 1 March 2022 to 30 September 2023.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources of the liable parent – a ground for departure established – decision to depart – decision under review varied

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed 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

Mr Jessop and Ms Letchford are the separated parents of two children aged 10 and 12 years. This review is about the child support payable by Mr Jessop to Ms Letchford for the children.
The child support case commenced in 2018. Services Australia (formerly the Department of Human Services) (‘Child Support’) had determined that Ms Letchford has 100% care of the children. A new determination was made recently that Ms Letchford had 83% care of the children from 22 October 2021.
There was no child support assessment from 1 December 2020 to 12 March 2021 due to Ms Letchford receiving an exemption from having to register for maintenance.
The administrative assessments from 1 September 2020 were based on Mr Jessop’s 2019–20 adjusted taxable income of $26,725. The child support payable was $446 per annum, the minimum annual rate.
On 23 March 2021, Ms Letchford lodged a departure application with Child Support. The application was made on the basis that the rate of child support payable under the administrative assessment was unfair because of the costs of the children’s education and Mr Jessop’s income and financial resources, and his earning capacity.
On 24 May 2021, a Child Support case officer decided that a reason had been established to depart from the administrative assessment and the following departure determination was made:
·For the period 12 March 2021 to 31 December 2023 Mr Jessop’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $70,460 and the annual rate of child support payable is increased by $464.
On 7 July 2021 Mr Jessop objected to this decision and on 14 September 2021 a Child Support objections officer partly allowed the objection. The objections officer decided to make the following departure determination:
·For the period 12 March 2021 to 30 June 2023 Mr Jessop’s adjusted taxable income was varied to $64,584, apart for the period 20 June 2021 to 1 September 2021, when the minimum annual rate was applied. For the period 12 March 2021 to 31 March…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jessop and Letchford (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] AATA 1710
Decision Date: 4 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by the liable parent, Mr Jessop, against a departure determination made by the Child Support Registrar. The dispute centred on whether the Registrar had erred in departing from the assessment of child support payable by Mr Jessop to Ms Letchford, the recipient parent, based on Mr Jessop's income, property, and financial resources.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar's decision to depart from the standard child support assessment was justified under the relevant provisions of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Registrar had correctly applied the grounds for departure, particularly concerning the financial circumstances of the liable parent.

The court reviewed the evidence presented regarding Mr Jessop's financial position, including his income and assets. It was found that the Registrar had properly considered the available information and had made a determination that was open to them on the facts. The court affirmed that a departure determination could be made where the liable parent's actual financial circumstances were significantly different from those assumed in the standard assessment, and that such a departure was justified in this instance.

The appeal was dismissed, and the departure determination made by the Child Support Registrar was affirmed.

Orders