Leigh and Watson - [2011] FMCAfam 238

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LEIGH & WATSON

[2011] FMCAfam 238

CHILD SUPPORT – No appearance by either party – Court satisfied both parties were given notice of the listing – no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting claim.

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), Divs.3 & 4
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth), s.68
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.03A, 13.03B, 13.10

Hacherl & Berrios [2010] FMCAfam 668
Wreford & Caley [2010] FamCAFC 21

Applicant:

MR LEIGH

Respondent:

MS WATSON

File Number:

HBC 431 of 2007

Judgment of:

Roberts FM

Hearing date:

10 February 2011

Date of Last Submission:

Not applicable – no appearances

Delivered at:

Launceston

Settled Reasons delivered on:

21 March 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Not applicable – no appearances

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Not applicable

Counsel for the Respondent:

Not applicable – no appearances

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Not applicable

ORDERS

That the Amended Application filed 15 October 2010 is dismissed.

IT IS DIRECTED

That a copy of these Orders be forwarded to the Child Support Agency in Hobart.

THE COURT NOTES

That when this matter was called neither the applicant nor the respondent appeared.
That the Court is satisfied that both parties were given notice on 29 November 2010 of the listing of the matter for hearing.
That pursuant to Rule 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 the Court is satisfied, in any event, that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting his claim.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT LAUNCESTON

HBC 431 of 2007

MR LEIGH

Applicant

And

MS WATSON

Respondent

SETTLED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter the applicant seeks order as follows:
1. The court make an Order pursuant to section 116 to vary the Applicant’s Assessment for period of an order varying the annual rate of child support payable by a parent in tax years ending 30 June 2001, 30 June 2002, 30 June 2003, 30 June 2004, 30 June2005; and
2. The court make an Order pursuant to section 118 to vary the Applicant’s child support income for tax years ending 30 June 2001, 30 June 2002, 30 June 2003, 30 June 2004 and 30 June 2005;
And/Or
3. The court grant leave under section 111 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 for the Registrar to make a determination under section 98S or the court make an Order under section 118 to amend the Applicant's administration assessment by varying the Applicant's Assessment for years ending 30 June 2004 and June 2005; and
4. The court make an Order pursuant to section 116 to vary the Applicant's Assessment for period of an order varying the annual rate of child support payable by a parent in tax years ending 30 June 2001, 30 June 2002 and 30 June 2003.
And
5 The Court discharge the late payment…

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.

Continue reading Leigh and Watson

Details

AGLC: Leigh and Watson [2011] FMCAfam 238
Case: [2011] FMCAfam 238
Decision Date: 21 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Leigh and Watson was heard by the Family Court of Australia. The dispute involved a matter related to child support, with the applicant, presumably the father, seeking changes to the existing child support arrangement. The court had to consider the application filed by the father against the response of the mother, who was also a party to the case. Neither party appeared in court when the matter was called, though both had been duly notified of the hearing date.

The legal issues before the court included whether the existing child support arrangement should be modified based on the father's application. The court had to assess the evidence and arguments presented in the amended application filed by the father and determine if there were valid grounds for altering the current child support agreement. Additionally, the court needed to consider procedural aspects, such as whether proper notice was given to both parties and if the application adhered to the relevant rules and regulations.

In its reasoning, the court noted that neither party appeared when the matter was called for hearing, despite both having been given notice. The court was satisfied that the required procedural steps were followed, including the service of notice on 29 November 2010. Given the absence of both parties, the court considered the merits of the application on the papers alone. After evaluating the application, the court found that there were insufficient grounds to justify amending the existing child support arrangement. Consequently, the court dismissed the amended application and directed that a copy of the orders be sent to the Child Support Agency in Hobart.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Amended Application filed 15 October 2010 is dismissed.

IT IS DIRECTED

That a copy of these Orders be forwarded to the Child Support Agency in Hobart.

THE COURT NOTES

That when this matter was called neither the applicant nor the respondent appeared.

That the Court is satisfied that both parties were given notice on 29 November 2010 of the listing of the matter for hearing.

That pursuant to Rule 13.10 of the

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.