Maple and Niu and Anor (No.2) - [2018] FCCA 26

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MAPLE & NIU & ANOR (No.2)

[2018] FCCA 26

Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – AAT APPEAL – Application for costs by First and Second Respondents following dismissal of the appeal.

Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s.44AAA
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.117
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss.5, 79
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.21

Cases cited:

Baldwin & Bartlett [2017] FCCA 928
Cousins & Peake (No.2) [2017] FCCA 2431
Kazar (Liquidator) v Kargarian; In the Matter of Frontier Architects Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2011] FCAFC 136
Re Kimberley John Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association & Ors [1986] FCA 382
Ritter v Godfrey (1920) 2 KB 47

Applicant:

MR MAPLE

First Respondent:

MS NIU

Second Respondent:

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

File Number:

NCC 1626 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge Terry

Hearing date:

20 December 2017

Date of Last Submission:

20 December 2017

Delivered at:

Newcastle

Delivered on:

10 January 2018

REPRESENTATION

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

The applicant pay to the First Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the Applicant’s AAT appeal fixed in the sum of $6,948.00, such amount to be paid within 3 months of the date of these orders.
The Applicant pay to the Second Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the Applicant’s AAT appeal fixed in the sum of $6,948.00, such amount to be paid within 3 months of the date of these proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Maple & Niu & Anor (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (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

On 29 September 2017 I made an order dismissing the Applicant’s appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 11 May 2016.
The First Respondent Ms Niu and the Second Respondent Child Support Registrar now each seek an order that the Applicant pay their costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $6,948.00.
The Second Respondent’s application was made by way of filing an Application in a Case and a brief supporting affidavit. The First Respondent’s application was made orally on 20 December 2017; her solicitor having sought through my Associate to have the matter listed that day.
Following the matter being called on I stood it in the list with a request that the First Respondent’s counsel prepare some brief submissions in support of his application.
The Second Respondent then also took the opportunity to prepare some written submissions.
The Applicant filed an Affidavit on 18 December 2017. While the matter was stood down he also prepared some written submissions.
After receiving the written submissions I reserved my decision due to the busy list…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Maple and Niu and Anor (No.2) 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] FCCA 26
Decision Date: 10 January 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Maple and Niu and Anor (No.2)*, heard by Judge Terry, the applicant sought to recover costs from the first and second respondents following an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The specific nature of the dispute that led to the AAT appeal is not detailed in the provided text, but the proceedings before Judge Terry concerned the allocation of costs associated with that prior appeal.

The central legal issue before Judge Terry was the determination of the quantum of costs to be awarded to the first and second respondents, and the timeframe for payment by the applicant. The court was required to fix these costs and establish the conditions under which they should be discharged.

Judge Terry ordered that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the AAT appeal, fixed at $6,948.00, to be paid within three months of the date of the orders. Similarly, the applicant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of and incidental to the AAT appeal, also fixed at $6,948.00, with payment due within three months of the date of these proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant pay to the First Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the Applicant’s AAT appeal fixed in the sum of $6,948.00, such amount to be paid within 3 months of the date of these orders.

The Applicant pay to the Second Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the Applicant’s AAT appeal fixed in the sum of $6,948.00, such amount to be paid within 3 months of the date of these proceedings.

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.