Morse & Potts (SSAT Appeal)

Case [2010] FMCAfam 1305

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MORSE & POTTS (SSAT APPEAL) [2010] FMCAfam 1305
CHILD SUPPORT – Appeal from decision of SSAT – whether decision demonstrates error of law – whether decision demonstrates any breach of natural justice or was procedurally unfair – function of SSAT to determine facts – assessment of credibility of witness function of fact finding tribunal – no error of law established – appeal dismissed.

Child Support (Assessment) Act, ss.98C;110G;117;150
Child Support (Registration & Collection) Act 1988, ss.88;94;103;103G;103N; 103P;103T;103X;110B;110C;110E;110F;110G

Aronson & Dyer: Judicial Review of Administrative Action (2nd Edition) 2000 LBC Information Services
PJ & Child Support Registrar (SSAT) Appeal [2007] FMCAfam 829
Neal v Secretary, Department of Transport (1980) 3 ALD 97
Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27
Blackwood Hodge (Australia) Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (No 2) (1980) 33 ALD 38
Htun v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2001) 194 ALR 244
Apthorpe v Repatriation Commission (1987) 13 ALD 656
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs: Ex Parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 198ALR 59
Collector of Customs v Pressure Tankers Pty Ltd and Pozzolanic Enterprise Pty Ltd [1993] 43 FCR 280
LDME & JMA [2007] FMCAfam 712
Briese & Briese (1986) FLC 91-713
Black & Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287
Agrippa & Horton (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 1144
Comcare v Moon [2003] FCA 569
Applicant: MR MORSE
Respondent: MS POTTS
File Number: ADC 3934 of 2008
Judgment of: Brown FM
Hearing date: 12 July 2010
Date of Last Submission: 12 July 2010
Delivered at: Adelaide
Delivered on: 30 November 2010

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: In person
Counsel for the Respondent: In Person

ORDERS

  1. The Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed on 6 August 2009 be dismissed.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADC 3934 of 2008

MR MORSE

Applicant

And

MS POTTS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. The proceedings were commenced by Mr Morse “the applicant”. The respondent to the proceedings is Ms Potts “the respondent”. The proceedings are concerned with a decision of the Social Securities Appeal Tribunal (the SSAT) made on 6 July 2009. 

  2. On 6 August 2009, the applicant filed a notice of appeal, in this court, in respect of that decision.  He seeks orders that the decision of the SSAT be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the SSAT for reconsideration. 

  3. The parties are the parents of two children, [X] born [in] 1995 and [Y] born [in] 1998.  The appeal relates to issues of child support for the two children, whose care is shared by the parties on a week about basis. 

  4. The grounds of appeal are as follows:

    “The SSAT failed to adequately consider the appellant’s capacity to contribute to the support of the children out of his income.

    The SSAT failed to consider the respondent’s greater capacity to contribute to the…

Continue reading Morse & Potts (SSAT Appeal)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Morse & Potts (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 1305
Case
[2010] FMCAfam 1305
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Morse and Potts were involved in a child support dispute which reached the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). Morse filed an appeal against Potts regarding the child support assessment. The legal issues at hand revolved around the interpretation and application of the relevant child support legislation and guidelines, specifically focusing on the calculation of income and the applicable rates for child support payments. The tribunal needed to determine whether the initial assessment was correct or if any errors warranted a different outcome.

The tribunal carefully reviewed the evidence presented by both parties, including income details and the statutory guidelines. It was found that Morse had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims for adjustments to the initial assessment. The tribunal upheld the original child support assessment, determining that Potts was not liable for any additional payments beyond what had been initially calculated. The tribunal emphasised that the onus was on Morse to demonstrate that the initial assessment was incorrect, a burden he had failed to meet.

As a result of this analysis, the tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Morse. The tribunal concluded that the initial child support assessment was correctly calculated and that no further adjustments were warranted based on the evidence provided. The tribunal's decision was final, and Morse's appeal was unsuccessful. Consequently, Potts remained liable only for the child support payments as originally assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Notice of Appeal (Child Support) filed on 6 August 2009 be dismissed.

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.