Mr Mansour and Mrs Chen (Child support) - [2018] AATA 219

Mr Mansour and Mrs Chen (Child support) [2018] AATA 219 (2 January 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2017/MC011918
APPLICANT:  Mr Mansour
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Mrs Chen

TRIBUNAL:Member P Noonan
DECISION DATE: 02 January 2018

DECISION:

The tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that:

From 1 December 2016 to 31 December 2018 Mr Mansour’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $42,634.

Member P Noonan

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988

CATCHWORDS
Child Support – Departure determination – Income and financial resources of parents – Business income – Decision under review set aside and substituted

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

The Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act) provides for an administrative assessment of the child support payable. It uses a formula, which contains variables such as the parents’ adjusted taxable incomes and their percentages of care of the children. The Act also provides for a departure from the administrative assessment in certain circumstances.
Mr Mansour and Mrs Chen are the parents of [Child 1] aged 7.
A child support case was first registered with the Department of Human Services (the Department) on 1 December 2016 and child support is registered for collection by the Department. The tribunal noted that the care of [Child 1] is currently recorded as 100% to Mrs Chen.
On 25 January 2017 Mrs Chen lodged a change of assessment application with the Department. Mrs Chen applied on the basis that Mr Mansour’s income and overall access to financial resources was such that application of the administrative assessment resulted in an unjust and inequitable determination of the amount of child support Mr Mansour must pay to her.
The liability history screens in respect to this case, as maintained by the Department, show that for the period 1 December 2016 to 28 February 2018 Mr Mansour is assessed to pay child support of $414 per year, based on his 2015-16 adjusted taxable income of $23,402 and Mrs Chen’s 2015-16 provisional income of nil.
On 10 April 2017, a Department decision maker decided that a reason for departure had not been established.
On 18 April 2017 Mrs Chen objected to this decision and on 6 June 2017 an objections officer decided to allow her objection. The officer decided that a departure determination was appropriate in the following terms:

The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Mansour is set at $4,160 per annum for the period 1 December 2016 to 30 November 2017.
The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Mansour is set at $4,420 per annum for the period 1 December 2017 to 30 November 2018.

Mr Mansour subsequently applied to this tribunal for an independent review.
A hearing for the matter was…

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 Mr Mansour and Mrs Chen (Child support) 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] AATA 219
Decision Date: 2 January 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a departure determination under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) brought by Mr Mansour against Mrs Chen. The dispute centred on the assessment of child support payable by Mr Mansour for the parties' child. The decision under review was made by the Registrar of the Child Support Agency. The case was heard by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Registrar had erred in her assessment of Mr Mansour's child support liability. Specifically, the Court was required to determine whether the Registrar had correctly considered Mr Mansour's income and financial resources, particularly income derived from his business interests, when making the departure determination.

The Court found that the Registrar had failed to adequately consider all relevant financial information provided by Mr Mansour, including evidence relating to his business income and expenses. The Court applied the principles of child support assessment, emphasising the need for a comprehensive and accurate assessment of a liable parent's capacity to pay. The Court concluded that the Registrar's decision was not supported by the evidence and that a departure from the administrative assessment was justified.

The Court set aside the Registrar's decision and substituted its own determination, recalculating Mr Mansour's child support liability based on a more accurate assessment of his income and financial resources.

Orders