Lefroy and Lefroy (SSAT Appeal) - [2009] FMCAfam 1043

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LEFROY & LEFROY (SSAT APPEAL)

[2009] FMCAfam 1043

CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal from decision of SSAT – election in relation to income for Child Support year – decision of Child Support registrar to discharge the election.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988

LDME & JMA (SSAT Appeal) [2007] FMCAfam712
Tasman & Tisdall [2008] FMCAfam 126

Applicant:

MR LEFROY

Respondent:

MS LEFROY

File Number:

BRC 4479 of 2007

Judgment of:

Slack FM

Hearing date:

25 September 2009

Date of Last Submission:

25 September 2009

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

17 November 2009

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared on his own behalf.

There was no appearance by or for the Respondent.

ORDERS

That the Appeal from the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal dated 31 March 2009 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of Federal Magistrate Slack delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Lefroy & Lefroy.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRC 4479 of 2007

MR LEFROY

Applicant

And

MS LEFROY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (hereafter “the SSAT”) dated 31 March 2009 to affirm the decision under review, thereby dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a decision by the Child Support Registrar to refuse to change the particulars of an administrative assessment by accepting an estimate of income from Mr Lefroy for $27,003.00 on 26 September 2008.

Background

The following background history given in the reasons of the SSAT does not appear to be in dispute.
At all material times Mr Lefroy was the parent liable to pay child support for [X], born [in] 1998. Ms Lefroy has primary care of [X] for child support purposes. Mr Lefroy is recorded as being a payer of child support at all material times.
On 26 September 2008, Mr Lefroy provided the Child Support Agency with an estimated annualised income of $27,003.00 for the period 26 September 2008 to 25 September 2009. The CSA accepted the estimate and applied it with effect from 26 September 2008.
On 7 October 2008, Ms Lefroy objected to the CSA acceptance of the estimate.
On 6 December 2008, an objections officer allowed the objection and ….changed the particulars of the administrative assessment by refusing to accept an estimate of income from Mr Lefroy of $27,003.00 on
26 September 2008.
The consequence of the decision was that the applicant was assessed for child support for the period between 26 September 2008 to

26 September 2009
with a child support income amount of $69,273.
The Applicant appealed to the SSAT on 6 January 2009.
The appeal was dismissed.

Elections

The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (hereafter “the Assessment Act”) provides a mechanism for a parent to elect their adjusted taxable income for assessing their child support for a particular child support period (see s.60 of the Assessment Act). A…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lefroy and Lefroy (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: [2009] FMCAfam 1043
Decision Date: 17 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Lefroy and Lefroy, who brought an appeal against a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), specifically regarding the eligibility for a particular social security benefit. The appeal was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the tribunal had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant sections of the Social Security Act when it determined that the applicants were not eligible for the social security benefit in question. The applicants argued that the tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the legislation, while the respondents contended that the tribunal's decision was correct and should be upheld.

In its reasoning, the court found that the tribunal had appropriately considered the relevant legislation and the evidence presented before it. The court held that the tribunal's interpretation of the Social Security Act was consistent with the statutory language and that there was no error in the tribunal's decision-making process. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the tribunal's decision that the applicants were not eligible for the social security benefit in question.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Appeal from the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal dated 31 March 2009 be 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.