Loomis and Thurston and Anor

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LOOMIS & THURSTON AND ANOR [2014] FamCA 551

FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal – Whether the grounds of appeal amount to an error of law – Where an error of law can occur if there is no evidence to support a finding of fact – Where an error of law is not established by a wrong finding of fact – Where an error of law can occur if a party is denied procedural fairness – Where the Appellant submits an error of law occurred by the SSAT failing to find and report allegations of fraud – Where the Appellant submits an error of law occurred by the SSAT failing to determine that the First Respondent is a vexatious litigant – Where the Appellant submits an error of law occurred as a result of a jurisdictional error – Where the Appellant submits that the SSAT demonstrated bias – Where no error of law established – Where all grounds for appeal fail – Appeal  dismissed.

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

APPLICANT: Mr Loomis

1st RESPONDENT: Ms Thurston

2nd RESPONDENT: Child Support Registrar

FILE NUMBER: BRC 1010 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 23 July 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: 15 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Loomis in Person

FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: Ms Thurston in Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

Mr JJ

Program Litigation and Review Branch
Department of Human Services

Orders

(1)That the Applicant’s Amended Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed 14 March 2014 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Loomis & Thurston and Anor has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 1010 of 2012

Mr Loomis

Applicant

And

Ms Thurston

1^st Respondent

And

Child Support Registrar 

2^nd Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1.This is an appeal against a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal made on 12 December 2013.

2.The Appellant, Mr Loomis, is the father of KK, who, at the time of the SSAT’s decision, was three years of age. The First Respondent to the appeal is the child’s mother, Ms Thurston. The Second Respondent to the appeal is the Child Support Registrar.

3.The couple separated in February 2012 and the child has been living with his mother for 72 per cent of the time and his father for 28 per cent of the time since then.

4.An administrative assessment of child support was made by the Child Support Agency commencing on 1 March 2012. Pursuant to that assessment, based on the 2010/2011 adjusted taxable incomes of $16,828 for Mr Loomis and $33,001 for Ms Thurston, the Appellant was not required to pay any child support.

5.On 2 November, 2012, the First Respondent mother…