Mayhall and Baily (Child support)

The case of *Mayhall and Baily* concerned a dispute over the crediting of certain payments made by the father, Mr Baily, towards his child support obligations. The mother, Ms Mayhall, sought to have these payments recognised as satisfying the child support assessment. The matter came before the court for review of a decision made by the Registrar.

The central legal issues before the court were whether various payments made by the father, including utility bills and car insurance, constituted "prescribed non-agency payments" that could be credited against his child support assessment under section 71C of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). The court was required to determine if these payments met the conditions for such crediting, particularly concerning the intention of the parties and the nature of the payments themselves.

The court reasoned that for a payment to be credited as a prescribed non-agency payment, there needed to be a mutual intention between the parties that the payment was being made in satisfaction of the child support liability. In this instance, the court found that while some of the conditions for crediting were partially satisfied, the lack of a clear mutual intention meant that not all payments could be fully credited. The court determined that certain utility payments could be credited as prescribed non-agency payments, but the car insurance payment did not meet the necessary criteria. Consequently, the court set aside the Registrar's decision and substituted its own.