McLean and Michell (Child support)

This matter concerned an appeal by the father regarding a decision of the Child Support Registrar concerning non-agency payments (NAPs). The dispute centred on whether two payments totalling $500 made by the father to the mother on 5 February 2022 and 22 February 2022 should be credited against his ongoing child support liability. The decision reviewed was made by the Child Support Registrar, and the appeal was heard by Deputy K Synon P.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the payments made by the father to the mother were intended by both parties to be in satisfaction of the father's child support liability, as required by section 71A of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. Specifically, the court had to consider the intention of both the father and the mother regarding the $500 in payments, in light of the mother's evidence that one payment was for day care fees and the father's assertion that he believed it was agreed this payment would be reported as a NAP.

The court's reasoning focused on the statutory requirements of section 71A, which mandates that for a payment to be treated as a NAP, there must be a mutual intention between both the payer and the payee that the amount be paid in satisfaction of child support. The mother's evidence indicated that the $300 payment on 22 February 2022 was specifically for day care fees and that there was no discussion of it being in lieu of child support. While the father agreed this payment was for day care, he believed it was intended to be credited against his child support. The mother did confirm a mutual intention for a separate $375 payment to be treated as a NAP, but explicitly stated this did not apply to the $500 in question. The court considered the father's explanations for delays in reporting payments, attributing them to work commitments and unreliable mobile coverage.

The decision under review was set aside and substituted. The court found that the $500 in payments made by the father to the mother on 5 February 2022 and 22 February 2022 were not intended by both parties to be in satisfaction of the father's child support liability. Therefore, these payments were not to be credited against his ongoing child support liability.