KEENAN & QUIGLEY - [2007] FMCAfam 228

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KEENAN & QUIGLEY

[2007] FMCAfam 228

CHILD SUPPORT – Application for departure – application for lump sum payment of child support – father transferred property into a trust account – whether the father has provided full and frank disclosure – whether private school fees be credited against child support liability.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, ss.117, 121- 125

Bendeich 16 FLR 371
Bolton v Bolton (1992) FLC 92-309
DGM & JLM (1998) FLC 92-816
Gilmour (1995) FLC 9259
Gyzelman (1992) FLC 92-279
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Prpic v Prpic [1995] FLC 92-573; 18 FLR 388
S & S (2000) FLC11

Applicant:

MS KEENAN

Respondent:

MR QUIGLEY

File number:

PAM 2183 of 2006

Judgment of:

Henderson FM

Hearing dates:

12 September 2006 & 4 April 2007

Date of last submission:

4 April 2007

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

1 May 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Schroder

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Martin Bullock Lawyers and Attorneys

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Alexander

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Yates Beaggi Lawyers

ORDERS

The wife’s application for lump sum child maintenance is dismissed.
The Administrative Assessment for child support dated 8 March 2005 be departed from.
The father, Mr Quigley, pay child support for the children of the relationship, [X] born in 1999 and [Y] born in 2002 as follows:
(a)For the period 8 March 2005 to 28 March 2006 by:
(i)Attending to payment of all fees and expenses relating to the child [X]’s enrolment at [S] School.
(ii)In payment of an additional amount at the annual rate of $14,400.00
(b)For the period 28 March 2006 to 30 June 2010:
(i)In payment of all school fees with respect of the attendance of either child at [S] School.
(ii)In payment of an additional sum at the annual rate of $24,000.00 per annum.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PARRAMATTA

PAM 2183 of 2006

MS KEENAN

Applicant

And

MR QUIGLEY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The matter of Keenan and Quigley came on for hearing before me on

12 September 2006 in relation to the mother’s application seeking a departure from an assessment of child support and an order for payment of child support by way of lump sum. The matter was initially listed for hearing in April 2006, however the matter could not proceed as the father had filed no material.
The matter was part heard from September 2006 to 4 April 2007 when the hearing resumed.
The applicant mother was represented by Mr Schroder of Counsel and the father by Mr Alexander of Counsel

Parties Applications

The precise orders sought by the mother were that the father pay private school fees for the children [X] born in 1999 and [Y] born in 2002 and that from 28 March 2006 child support be increased to $24,000 per annum from $14,400.00…

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.

Continue reading KEENAN & QUIGLEY

Details

AGLC: KEENAN & QUIGLEY [2007] FMCAfam 228
Case: [2007] FMCAfam 228
Decision Date: 1 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Keenan & Quigley, the respondent wife brought an application against the applicant husband for a review of child support arrangements. The wife sought a lump sum payment of child maintenance and an increase in the ongoing child support payments. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The court had to decide whether the wife's application for a lump sum child maintenance payment was justified and whether the child support payments should be increased. The court also had to determine the appropriate amount of child support for the specified periods.

The court found that the wife's application for a lump sum child maintenance payment was not justified. The wife had not demonstrated a need for such a payment, and the court noted that there was no legal authority for such a payment in this jurisdiction. The court also considered the husband's ability to pay and found that the existing child support arrangements were reasonable. However, the court found that the husband should pay an additional amount of child support for the specified periods. The court noted that the husband had the means to pay the additional amount and that the children's needs should be prioritised. The court ordered that the husband pay the additional child support as specified in the orders.

The court's reasoning was based on the principles of fairness and the best interests of the children. The court considered the husband's ability to pay and the children's needs and determined that the additional child support payments were necessary. The court also noted that the existing child support arrangements were reasonable and did not need to be varied significantly. The court's orders reflect a balanced approach to the issues before it, taking into account the needs of the children and the ability of the husband to pay.

Orders

Orders of the court

The wife’s application for lump sum child maintenance is dismissed.

The Administrative Assessment for child support dated 8 March 2005 be departed from.

The father, Mr Quigley, pay child support for the children of the relationship, [X] born in 1999 and [Y] born in 2002 as follows:

(a) For the period 8 March 2005 to 28 March 2006 by:

(i) Attending to payment of all fees and expenses relating to the child [X]’s enrolment at [S] School.

(ii) In payment of an additional amount at the annual rate of $14,400.00

(b) For the period 28 March 2006 to 30 June 2010:

(i) In payment of all school fees with respect of the attendance of either child at [S] School.

(ii) In payment of an additional sum at the annual rate of $24,000.00 per annum.

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.