Jordan & Verne (SSAT Appeal)

Link copied
Case Copied 40 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JORDAN & VERNE (SSAT APPEAL) [2012] FMCAfam 21
CHILD SUPPORT – Decision of Social Security Appeals Tribunal set aside.
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, s.117
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, ss.103X, 110B
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, ss.43, 441(1)
Social Security (Administration Act) 1999
Family Law Act 1975, s.75
Local Government Act 1919 (NSW), s.118(1)
Gyselman v Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-297
LDME & JMA (SSAT Appeal) (2007) 38 Fam LR 132
Lockie [2009] FamCA 656
Tasman & Tisdall [2008] FMCAfam 126
Byrne & Graham (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 1116
Travers & Gibbon (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 543
Rana v Repatriation Commission [2011] FCAFC 124
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic (1993) 43 FCR 280
Summerby & Cadogen [2011] FamCAFC 205
Sagigi v Comcare [2009] FCA 385
Christiansen v Social Security Appeals Tribunal [2010] FCA 1146
Birdseye v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003) 76 ALD 321
Gyselman v Gyselman (1991) 15 Fam LR 219
Savery and Savery (1990) FLC 92-131
Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 266 ALR 367
Applicant: MS JORDAN
Respondent: MR VERNE
File Number: ROC 459 of 2007
Judgment of: Jarrett FM
Hearing date: 30 June 2011
Date of Last Submission: 30 June 2011
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 13 January 2012

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Green
Solicitors for the Applicant: Harrington Family Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Arnold
Solicitors for the Respondent: Dave McHenry & Associates

ORDERS

  1. That the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal made on 7 September, 2010 between Mr Verne and Ms Jordan be set aside.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT ROCKHAMPTON

ROC 459 of 2007

MS JORDAN

Applicant

And

MR VERNE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal by Ms Jordan pursuant to s.110B of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) made on 30 August, 2010. The SSAT’s decision set aside certain determinations of an objections officer made pursuant to Part 6A of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.  The objections officer’s decision was made in respect of a decision of a senior case officer of the Child Support Agency in relation to certain change of assessment applications by Mr Verne and Ms Jordan.

Background

  1. The decision of the SSAT sets out the background to this application as follows:

    History

    1. Mr Verne and Ms Jordan are the parents of [X] born [in] 1992 and [Y] born [in] 1997.  At all material times, the Child Support Agency ('CSA') has recorded the children as being in the primary or above primary care…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jordan & Verne (SSAT Appeal) 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
[2012] FMCAfam 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case between Jordan & Verne, the appellant, Mr Verne, sought to appeal a decision made by the Social Security Appeal Tribunal on 7 September 2010. The dispute centred on a determination regarding the eligibility of certain social security benefits. The Federal Circuit Court was tasked with reviewing the merits of this appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal's decision contained errors of law that warranted setting aside the decision. The court had to assess the correctness of the Tribunal's interpretation and application of relevant legislation and whether there was any procedural unfairness that affected the outcome.

The court examined the grounds of appeal, focusing on whether the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the applicable social security provisions. It was necessary to determine if the Tribunal correctly understood and applied the relevant statutes and regulations. Additionally, the court considered whether the process followed by the Tribunal was fair and if there were any procedural defects that could have influenced the decision. The court determined that the Tribunal had indeed made an error in its legal reasoning, leading to an incorrect conclusion regarding the eligibility for benefits. The court found that this error warranted the setting aside of the Tribunal's decision.

Based on the findings, the court ordered that the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal made on 7 September 2010 be set aside. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the court's determination. This outcome ensured that the parties would have the opportunity to present their case anew, with the correct legal framework applied by the Tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal made on 7 September, 2010 between Mr Verne and Ms Jordan be set aside.

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.