LEAKE & GALVIN

Case [2011] FMCAfam 650


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LEAKE & GALVIN [2011] FMCAfam 650

CHILD SUPPORT – Enforcement of arrears of child support – whether arrears enforceable – where respondent was not a resident of Australia at the relevant time – resident of China – China not a reciprocating jurisdiction.

FAMILY LAW – Maintenance – child maintenance – where applicant seeks retrospective orders – where order for child maintenance cannot be made because an application could properly be made for administrative assessment of child support.

SUMMARY DISMISSAL – No reasonable prospects of success – no jurisdiction to make the orders sought.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), ss.24, 25, 29A,117
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth), s.113A
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.66E, 66G, 66P, 69E
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.17A
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Regulations 1988 (Cth), Sch. 2
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.13.10
Bemert & Swallow [2009] FamCA5
Bigg v Suzi (1998) FLC 92-799
Lindon v Commonwealth (No.2) (1996) 136 ALR 251; 70 ALJR 541
Applicant: MS LEAKE
Respondent: MR GALVIN
File Number: MLC 3127 of 2010
Judgment of: Scarlett FM
Hearing date: 29 October 2010
Date of Last Submission: 29 October 2010
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 30 June 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Dr Ingleby
Solicitors for the Applicant: Forte Family Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Maurice
Solicitors for the Respondent: DGB Lawyers

ORDERS

  1. The Application filed on 7 April 2010 is dismissed.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

MLC 3127 of 2010

MS LEAKE

Applicant

And

MR GALVIN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

  1. The Applicant Wife, by her Amended Application filed on 28th October 2010, seeks, by way of an interim order, an injunction restraining the Respondent Husband from selling, encumbering, furthering or in any way dealing with a property at [H], New South Wales.

  2. The Applicant seeks extensive final orders.

  3. First, she seeks orders that the Respondent pay to her arrears amounting to $67,133.04 under child support departure orders made in the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne on 26th July 2004.

  4. However, if the Applicant is wholly or partly unsuccessful in obtaining that order, she seeks for child maintenance in respect of the parties’ son [X], who was born [in] 1994 until he attains the age of 18 years or completes his secondary education. The orders that the Applicant seeks are that the Respondent pay:

    a)a monthly amount of $1,908.25;

    b)all school and tuition fees at [G] School, Kula Lumpur, Malaysia;

    c)all school and tuition fees at [K] School, New South Wales;

    d)book, stationery and other expenses; and

    e)reasonable school uniform and sporting requisites.

  5. In the alternative, the Applicant seeks payment of the above amounts from another date that the Court deems appropriate.

  6. The Applicant seeks an order that the Respondent should reimburse her for the sum of…

Continue reading LEAKE & GALVIN

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
LEAKE & GALVIN [2011] FMCAfam 650
Case
[2011] FMCAfam 650
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leake & Galvin involved a dispute regarding the enforcement of child support arrears. The applicant sought enforcement of arrears owed by the respondent, who was not a resident of Australia and resided in China. The respondent argued that the arrears were not enforceable because China was not a reciprocating jurisdiction under Australian law. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the arrears of child support could be enforced against the respondent, who was not a resident of Australia and resided in China, a country that does not reciprocate with Australia under child support agreements. Additionally, the court had to determine if retrospective orders for child maintenance could be made when an application for administrative assessment of child support was possible.

The court found that the arrears were not enforceable because China did not reciprocate under the relevant child support agreements. Furthermore, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to make retrospective orders for child maintenance as an application could properly be made for administrative assessment of child support. The court determined that there were no reasonable prospects of success for the application, leading to the dismissal of the case.

The court dismissed the application filed on 7 April 2010. The orders included the dismissal of the application, with no further orders for enforcement of arrears or retrospective child maintenance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application filed on 7 April 2010 is dismissed.

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.