Manley and Lazenbury (Child support)

This matter concerned an appeal by the father, Mr Manley, against a decision of the Child Support Registrar. The dispute centred on the assessment of child support payable by the father to the mother, Ms Lazenbury, for their two children. The appeal was heard by Magistrate K Buxton.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the father's income should be assessed at a higher rate than that declared, pursuant to section 117(1) of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). This section allows the Registrar to assess a parent's child support liability based on a higher income amount if they are satisfied that the parent is intentionally under-employing themselves or has failed to obtain a reasonable level of employment.

Magistrate Buxton considered the evidence presented regarding the father's employment history and earning capacity. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning intentional under-employment, focusing on whether the father's reduced income was a deliberate choice rather than a consequence of genuine inability to secure higher-paying work. The Court found that the father had not discharged the onus of demonstrating that his reduced income was not a result of intentional under-employment.

Consequently, the Court upheld the Child Support Registrar's decision to assess the father's child support liability based on a higher notional income.