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
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
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.
The Applicant seeks extensive final orders.
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.
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.
In the alternative, the Applicant seeks payment of the above amounts from another date that the Court deems appropriate.
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
- AGLC
- LEAKE & GALVIN [2011] FMCAfam 650
- Case
- [2011] FMCAfam 650
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.