Maple and Niu and Anor

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MAPLE & NIU & ANOR [2017] FCCA 2369

Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – AAT APPEAL – Where the challenges are to findings of fact – no error of law demonstrated – appeal dismissed.

Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss.33, 44, 44AAA

Cases cited:

Carrigan & Fredericks (SSAT Appeal) (2011) 45 FamLR 657
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259
Servos v Repatriation Commission [1995] FCA 150

Applicant: MR MAPLE

First Respondent: MS NIU

Second Respondent: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

File Number: NCC 1626 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Terry

Hearing date: 1 December 2016

Date of Last Submission: 1 December 2016

Delivered at: Gunnedah

Delivered on: 29 September 2017

REPRESENTATION

Appearance for the Applicant: In Person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Williams

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Attwaters

Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Mills Oakley Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The applicants’ appeal from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 11 May 2016 is dismissed.

2. The application for a stay contained in the Further Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 22 November 2016 is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Maple & Niu & Anor is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT NEWCASTLE

NCC 1626 of 2016

MR MAPLE

Applicant

And

MS NIU

First Respondent

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. MR MAPLE has filed an appeal from an AAT child support first review decision which set his taxable income at $107,000.00 from 28 April 2014 until the assessment ends. He seeks to have the decision set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing.

2. Ms Niu, the mother of the parties’ child, submits that Mr Maple has not established that the Tribunal made an error of law. In her response she sought to have the appeal summarily dismissed.

3. The Child Support Registrar also seeks dismissal of the appeal on the basis that Mr Maple has failed to identify any error of law.

Documents relied on

1. On 31 August 2016 when this matter was listed for hearing orders were made concerning the filing of documents.

2. Order 4 provided that the documents relied on at the appeal would be:

   a)The [Amended] Notice of Appeal;

   b)A copy of the decision of the AAT;

   c)The statement of the reasons for that decision;

   d)The documents that were before the AAT in relation to the proceedings provided to the court pursuant to s. 46(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act;

   e)Any affidavit filed pursuant to Order 3 [which allowed the applicant to file and serve an affidavit exhibiting any additional documentation that was before the AAT but had not been supplied pursuant to s. 46(1)(a)];

   f)The transcript of the proceedings if filed pursuant to order 2 above;

   g)Any such other document(s) for which leave of the court has been granted.

3. To reinforce Order 4(g), Order 5 provided that the parties must obtain the leave of the court to rely…