Keri and Wilfred and Anor

Mr Keri (the father) applied to the Family Court of Australia challenging the validity of child support assessments made against him, which had resulted in significant arrears. The dispute concerned approximately $124,000 in outstanding child support, including interest and penalties, for the period between November 2001 and February 2007. The father contended that the Child Support Registrar lacked the power to make these assessments because he was not a resident of Australia at the time. Ms Wilfred (the mother) did not participate in the proceedings.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the delegated legislation, specifically the Child Support (Assessment) (Overseas-Related Maintenance Obligations) Regulations 2000, was validly made and, if so, whether it conferred power on the Child Support Registrar to assess the father for child support despite his non-residency in Australia. The father argued that even if the regulations were valid, they did not extend the administrative child support scheme to him, or alternatively, that the regulations themselves were beyond the scope of the enabling legislation, s 163B of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.

The Court considered the effect of s 163B of the Assessment Act, which purported to grant the Executive power to make regulations concerning overseas-related maintenance obligations that could prevail over the Act itself. The Court noted that s 25 of the Assessment Act ordinarily required a parent to be a resident of Australia to be subject to an administrative assessment. However, Regulation 14 of the Assessment (Overseas-Related Maintenance Obligations) Regulations purported to allow applications for child support from a parent who was a resident of a reciprocating jurisdiction. The Court found that the delegated legislation, as enacted, was within the power conferred by s 163B and that Regulation 14 validly brought the father within the administrative child support assessment scheme. Consequently, the assessments were held to be valid.

The father's application was dismissed. The Court also made detailed orders regarding the process for any party wishing to make an application for costs, including timelines for written submissions and the possibility of oral argument. The Court certified that it was reasonable to engage counsel.