FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MANCHESTER & MANCHESTER (SSAT APPEAL) | [2010] FMCAfam 947 |
| CHILD SUPPORT – SSAT Appeal – Error of law established – proceeds of sale of capital not a financial resource – non discernable consideration of s.117 (4) – remit for rehearing. |
| Child Support Assessment Act 1989, s.117(4) |
| Wright v Wright [2009] FMCAfam 979 Comcare Australia v Lees [1997] FCA 1415 Nestle Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 16 FCR 167 |
| Applicant: | MR MANCHESTER |
| Respondent: | MS MANCHESTER |
| File Number: | PAC5144 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Dunkley FM |
| Hearing date: | 10 June 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 10 June 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 7 September 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Maclarens Lawyers |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Legal Aid NSW |
ORDERS
The decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal made on
29 September 2009 be set aside.
The decision be remitted for rehearing according to law and subject to any further evidence that may now be applicable.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Manchester & Manchester is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT Parramatta |
PAC5144 of 2009
| MR MANCHESTER |
Applicant
And
| MS MANCHESTER |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an appeal from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) made on 29 September 2009. Mr Manchester is the Appellant. He is the parent liable to pay child support to
Ms Manchester for their children [W], born [in] 1992, [X], born [in] 1994, [Y], born [in] 1999 and [Z], born [in] 2000.
Ms Manchester is the Respondent and opposed the Appeal.
Background
On 18 May 2009, an Objections Officer at the Child Support Agency (Agency) disallowed an objection by Mr Manchester, with respect to his Child Support Assessment.
As a result the above a decision made by a Senior Case Officer of the Agency on 23 May 2008 to change Mr Manchester’s existing Child Support Assessment was unaffected. As a consequence, at the time of the Appeal to the Tribunal, Mr Manchester was assessed as follows:
a)For the period 20 March 2008 to 30 June 2008 to have a child support income set at $69, 600.00 per annum;
b)For the period 1 July 2008 to 31 March 2010 to have an adjusted taxable income set at $69,600.00;
c)For the period 1 July 2008 to 31 March 2010 Ms Manchester’s adjusted taxable income was set at $25,287.00 per annum.
Mr Manchester’s Appeal was heard in the Federal Magistrates Court on 10 June 2010. He was represented by his solicitor, Mr Tilley.
Ms Manchester was represented by her solicitor, Ms Cole.
There are two grounds of appeal, set out in the Notice of Appeal
Background Facts
Mr and Ms Manchester have four children, [W], born [in] 1992, [X], born [in] 1994, [Y], born [in] 1999 and [Z], born [in] 2000.
The children live with the mother, Ms Manchester.
The parties separated early in 2005.
The Family Court of Australia…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Manchester & Manchester (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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] FMCAfam 947
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the SSAT had erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the SSAT had correctly identified and applied section 117(4) of the relevant legislation, which pertains to the treatment of proceeds from the sale of capital assets. The court also needed to assess whether the SSAT had appropriately considered the nature of the consideration received from the sale of the capital asset and whether it had failed to discern the relevant statutory provisions correctly.
In resolving the matter, the court found that the SSAT had indeed made an error of law. The tribunal had failed to properly consider the statutory provision regarding the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset, and had not adequately discerned the relevant sections of the legislation. The court concluded that the SSAT's decision was flawed due to these oversights. Consequently, the court set aside the decision of the SSAT and remitted the matter for rehearing. The court emphasised that the rehearing should be conducted according to law and with consideration of any further evidence that might be pertinent to the matter.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal made on
29 September 2009 be set aside.
2.
The decision be remitted for rehearing according to law and subject to any further evidence that may now be applicable.
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.