Maag and Maag (Child support) - [2020] AATA 4779

Maag and Maag (Child support) [2020] AATA 4779 (7 October 2020)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBERS: 2020/AC019647 & 2020/AC019648
APPLICANT: Mr Maag

OTHER PARTIES: Ms Maag

Child Support Registrar

TRIBUNAL: Member S Cullimore

DECISION DATE: 7 October 2020

DECISION:

The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

This means that the amounts of $1,250.00, $1,000.00 and $941.89 paid by Mr Maag to the relevant school on 2 March 2020, 31 March 2020 and 4 May 2020, respectively, are not to be credited to Mr Maag as non-agency payments, and the applications for review are not successful.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – non-agency payment – whether school fees should be credited as prescribed payments – all conditions to credit are satisfied – whether there are special circumstances to refuse – special circumstances exist – prescribed payments refused – decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

The following information is taken from the records of Services Australia – Child Support (“the CSA”) and is not in dispute, and the Tribunal finds each matter as fact.
Mr Maag and Ms Maag are the parents of three children, one of whom is still subject to the child support case (he is now 15 years old).
The child support case originally started on 22 January 2007 and has been Registrar Collect since 17 February 2020.
Care is recorded as sole care to Ms Maag since 26 January 2020 (it was previously shared care since 2011).[1]
[1] C123
The current assessment, from 1 October 2020, is that Mr Maag pay Ms Maag $26,672 pa (ie. based on her having sole care).[2]
[2] A130
In two separate claims, Mr Maag claimed credits for various “non-agency payments” (“NAPs”). These were for school fees for the relevant child, and were amounts paid by him to the school concerned on 2 March 2020 ($1,250.00), 31 March 2020 ($1,000.00) and 4 May 2020 ($941.89).
On 15 April 2020 a delegate decided to refuse to credit the amounts of $1,250.00 and $1,000.00, relying upon the discretion contained in section 71D of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act1988 (“the Act”).[3]
[3] Set out below.
On 15 May 2020 a different delegate accepted a claim by Mr Maag for the crediting of the amount of $941.89.
Each parent objected to the decision adverse to them.

10.On 14 July 2020 and 15 July 2020 objections officers decided (in short) to refuse to credit all three payments to Mr Maag, relying upon section 71D of the Act.[4]
[4] Thus “allowing” Ms Maag’s objection to one decision and “disallowing” Mr Maag’s objection to the other decision.
11.On 11 August 2020 Mr Maag sought further review by this Tribunal of the objection decisions.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE…

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 Maag and Maag (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Maag and Maag (Child support) [2020] AATA 4779
Case: [2020] AATA 4779
Decision Date: 7 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by the father, Mr Maag, against a decision of the Child Support Registrar. The dispute centred on whether certain school fees paid by the father should be credited as prescribed payments against his child support liability. The appeal was heard by Magistrate S Cullimore.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the father had satisfied the conditions for crediting school fees as prescribed payments under the relevant legislation, and if so, whether there were any special circumstances that would justify refusing such a credit.

Magistrate Cullimore found that the father had met all the necessary conditions to have the school fees credited as prescribed payments. However, the Court determined that special circumstances did exist in this case, which warranted the refusal of the credit. The Court affirmed the decision of the Child Support Registrar.

Orders