Kadeh and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2022] AATA 4803

Kadeh and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2022] AATA 4803 (7 July 2022)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION 

File Number(s):      2022/3622

Re:Imad Kadeh  

APPLICANT

AndChild Support Registrar

RESPONDENT

WRITTEN REASONS FOR DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION ON 24 June 2022

Tribunal:Deputy President J W Constance  

Date of written reasons:         7 July 2022  

Place:Sydney

Pursuant to subsection 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) the Tribunal dismissed the application on 24 June 2022 satisfied that the decision for which the Applicant sought review is not reviewable.

..............................[SGD]...................................
Deputy President J W Constance

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION – Child Support Registrar – Departure Prohibition Order – where Applicant requested Tribunal review of the decision to make a Departure Prohibition Order – where relevant enactment does not provide Tribunal jurisdiction to review the making of a Departure Prohibition Order – where appeal lies in the Federal Court of Australia and Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia against the making of such Order – application dismissed for no jurisdiction

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 25(1), 42A(4)

Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth), ss 72D, 72Q

WRITTEN REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President J W Constance

7 July 2022 

introduction

1. On 4 May 2022 Mr Kadeh applied to the Tribunal to review a decision of the Child Support Registrar to issue to him a Departure Prohibition order in accordance with the provisions of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Child Support Act”). The decision was made in 2016.

2. On 24 June 2022, after further enquiries made by the Tribunal, I dismissed Mr Kadeh’s application on the ground that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the decision.[1]

   [1] Subsection 42A(4) of the AAT Act.

3. I now provide reasons for my decision to dismiss the application.

   the tribunal’s jurisdiction

4. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is established by subsection 25(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“the AAT Act”):

   (1)  An enactment may provide that applications may be made to the Tribunal:

   (a)for review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment; or

   (b)for the review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred, or that may be conferred, by another enactment having effect under that enactment.

   The effect of this provision is that the Tribunal can only review those administrative decisions specified for review by other Acts of Parliament.

   reasons

5. In his application for review, Mr Kadeh described the decision he wished to have reviewed as “Departure prohibition order number 234711” made on 19 December 2016.  He stated his reasons for considering the decision was wrong.

6. The Departure Prohibition Order was made by the Registrar under section 72D of the Child Support Act which sets out the circumstances in which such an order can be made.

7. Section 72Q of the Child Support Act provides for appeals against the making of departure prohibition orders:

   (1)  A person aggrieved by the making of a departure prohibition order may appeal to the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Division 2) against the making of the order.

   …..

8. There is no provision in the Child Support Act for this Tribunal to review a decision to issue a Departure Prohibition Order and for this reason the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to do so.

9. I note that prior to my dismissing Mr Kadeh’s application, a Tribunal Officer wrote to the Child Support Registrar and asked if any other orders had been issued to Mr Kadeh.  This was done to ensure that Mr Kadeh was not mistaken as to the order he wished to have reviewed by the Tribunal.  The Registrar advised the Tribunal that the only order against Mr Kadeh was that referred to in his application of 4 May 2022.

I certify that the preceding 9 (nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President J W Constance

................................[SGD]....................................

Associate

Dated: 7 July 2022