Kindree & CSR & Anor (SSAT Appeal)

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KINDREE & CSR & ANOR (SSAT APPEAL) [2010] FMCAfam 357
CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal from SSAT – error of law – assessment of earning capacity – no material before Tribunal upon which the conclusion could properly be based.
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, ss.4, 7A, 77, 98S, 117
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, ss.103N, 103T
Evidence Act 1995, s.144

Commonwealth Shipping Representative v P & O Service [1923] AC 191
C.S.R & MMB & DEJ(SSAT Appeal) [2007] FMCAfam 944
Domain Names Australia Pty Ltd v .au Domain Administration Ltd [2004] FCAFC 247; (2004) 139 FCR 215; (2004) 63 IPR 1
Forbes & Bream [2010] FamCAFC 6
Gattellaro v Westpac Bank Banking Corp [2004] HCA 6; (2004) 78 ALJR 294
J & H Timbers Pty Ltd vNelson (1971) 126 CLR 625
Minister for Immigration  v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6; (1996) 185 CLR 259; (1996) 136 ALR 481; (1996) 70 ALJR 568; (1996) 41 ALD 1
PJ & Child Support Registrar (SSAT Appeal) [2007] FMCAfam 829; (2007) 38 Fam LR 31; (2007) FLC ¶98-035
Rawlings & Rawlings [2010] FMCAfam 65
Reynolds v Llanelly Associated Tinplate Co Ltd [1948] 1 All ER 140
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Murphy [1998] FCA 809
Wright & Wright [2009] FMCAfam 979; (2009) 42 Fam LR 281

Freckelton and Selby, Expert Evidence: Law Practice and Procedure (4th ed.)
Macquarie Dictionary (revised 3rd ed.)

Appellant: MR KINDREE
First Respondent: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
Second Respondent: MS GIVENS
File Number: SYC 4722 of 2009
Judgment of: Riethmuller FM
Hearing date: 30 November 2009
Date of Last Submission: 30 November 2009
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 22 April 2010

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appearing in person.
Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Wild
Solicitors for the Respondent: Child Support Agency
Counsel for the Second Respondent: There being no appearance by or on behalf of the First Respondent.

ORDERS

  1. That the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, appeal SC226591 be set aside.

  2. The matter be remitted to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to hear and determine according to law.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

SYC 4722 of 2009

MR KINDREE

Appellant

and

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

First Respondent

MS GIVENS

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The appellant and the second respondent are the parents of two children, P and A, who were born 1991 and 1996 respectively.  There has been a child support assessment in place since 2001.  There have been a number of applications to change the child support assessment during that time.

  2. This appeal concerns the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, made 3 July 2009. The review is with respect to a decision that the child support rate…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kindree & CSR & Anor (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
[2010] FMCAfam 357
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Kindree & CSR and two others, appealing a decision made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The dispute centred around a decision made by the Tribunal in relation to social security benefits. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The appellants were challenging the Tribunal's decision on several grounds, arguing that it contained errors of law and misapplied the relevant statutory provisions.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the Tribunal had correctly interpreted and applied the statutory provisions in question, and whether there were any errors of law that warranted the setting aside of the Tribunal's decision. The appellants argued that the Tribunal had failed to properly consider certain evidence and had misapplied the law in relation to the assessment of their eligibility for the benefits in question.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Tribunal had indeed erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions. The court found that the Tribunal had failed to properly consider certain evidence and had misapplied the law in assessing the appellants' eligibility for the benefits. The court held that these errors were significant enough to warrant the setting aside of the Tribunal's decision and the remittal of the matter back to the Tribunal for rehearing. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the relevant statutory provisions.

The final orders of the court were to set aside the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for rehearing according to law. The court did not make any further orders in relation to the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, appeal SC226591 be set aside.

2.

The matter be remitted to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to hear and determine according to law.

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.