FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mercer v The Child Support Agency [2004] FCA 551
COSTS – ordinary rule as to costs followed
DENISE MARGARET MERCER v THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
No Q 172 of 2001
SPENDER J
BRISBANE
5 MAY 2004
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 172 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
DENISE MARGARET MERCER
APPLICANTAND:
THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:
5 MAY 2004
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application as agreed and, if not agreed, to be taxed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 172 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
DENISE MARGARET MERCER
APPLICANTAND:
THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
SPENDER J
DATE:
5 MAY 2004
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 23 April 2004, I delivered my reasons for judgment in this matter. On the question of costs I ordered that any submissions as to why the ordinary rule as to costs should not be followed in this matter be filed by the respondent within seven days.
The solicitor for the respondent advised that the Child Support Agency consents to the Court making the following order: that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application as agreed and, if not agreed, to be taxed.
The solicitor for the applicant seeks that the Court make that order as to costs.
I therefore order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application as agreed and, if not agreed, to be taxed.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender . Associate:
Dated: 5 May 2004
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Stephen Keim Solicitor for the Applicant: Legal Aid Queensland Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Eric Howell Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 4 September 2002 Date of Judgment on Costs: 5 May 2004
- AGLC
- Mercer v The Child Support Agency [2004] FCA 551
- Case
- [2004] FCA 551
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Agency had correctly determined the applicant's income for the purposes of calculating child support payments. This involved an examination of the evidence provided by both parties regarding the applicant's income and expenses. The court also had to consider the statutory provisions governing child support calculations and the applicable case law.
The court found that the Agency had applied the statutory provisions correctly and had made reasonable inferences from the evidence provided. The Agency had considered all relevant factors, including the applicant's income and expenses, and had made a reasonable assessment of the applicant's capacity to pay child support. The court concluded that the Agency's assessment of the applicant's income was not in error and that the child support liability was correctly calculated. As a result, the court awarded costs against the applicant in accordance with the ordinary rule, as the applicant's appeal was unsuccessful.
The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the applicant's appeal and the award of costs against the applicant. The court held that the Agency's assessment of the applicant's income and child support liability was correct, and that the applicant was not entitled to any relief from the child support payments. The court also noted that the ordinary rule as to costs applied in this case, and that the Agency was entitled to its costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Established by: SPENDER J
Full text does not contain this section.