Kane and Naylor and Anor

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Kane against a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) regarding child support assessments for his children with Ms Naylor. The dispute arose after Mr Kane applied for a departure from the administrative assessment, citing his belief that Ms Naylor's income was higher than declared and that his own financial circumstances had changed due to his resignation from employment. Ms Naylor cross-applied, arguing Mr Kane had additional financial resources. The SSAT ultimately set aside a previous objection decision and substituted a new decision that adjusted Mr Kane's income based on his earning capacity and modified Ms Naylor's income, altering the child support payable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the SSAT erred in law by denying Mr Kane procedural fairness in its exercise of powers under the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* and the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*. Specifically, the appeal focused on the SSAT's handling of Mr Kane's medical evidence regarding his resignation and his subsequent refusal to disclose details of his health conditions to Ms Naylor, despite being informed that such non-disclosure might prevent the SSAT from being satisfied that his resignation was justified on health grounds.

The court found that the SSAT had acted appropriately in its handling of the procedural fairness issue. The SSAT had clearly explained to Mr Kane that his refusal to disclose medical details, which would have been withheld from Ms Naylor, could lead to a finding that his resignation was not justified on health grounds. The SSAT also noted that non-disclosure orders had previously been made. Despite these warnings and the opportunity to provide further details, Mr Kane declined to do so. The SSAT's subsequent finding that Mr Kane's resignation was not justified on the balance of probabilities, based on the limited evidence available and the lack of disclosure, was therefore not an error of law. The court concluded that the SSAT had not denied Mr Kane procedural fairness and that the amended notice of appeal, which relied on this ground, should be dismissed.