Liang and Lam (Child support)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning a decision by the Child Support Registrar to refuse to credit certain non-periodic maintenance payments made by the applicant, Mr. Liang, to the respondent, Ms. Lam. The dispute centred on whether these payments, which were not made through the Child Support Agency, qualified for credit against Mr. Liang's child support liability.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the payments made by Mr. Liang to Ms. Lam constituted "non-periodic maintenance" within the meaning of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) and, if so, whether they should be credited against his child support assessment. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the conditions under which such payments could be recognised and credited by the Registrar, particularly when they were not made via the agency.

The Tribunal affirmed the Registrar's decision, finding that the payments in question did not meet the criteria for credit. The reasoning applied was that for non-periodic maintenance payments to be credited, they must be made in accordance with an order or agreement that specifies they are for non-periodic maintenance and that such payments are to be made directly to the payee. As the payments made by Mr. Liang were not established to be for non-periodic maintenance as defined by the Act, nor were they made pursuant to an order or agreement that facilitated such direct crediting, the Registrar was correct in refusing to credit them against his child support assessment.