Muraille and Loiseau (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 950

Muraille and Loiseau (Child support) [2025] ARTA 950 (12 May 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Muraille

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Loiseau

Tribunal Number: 2025/BC029099

Tribunal: Senior Member A Suthers

Place: Perth

Date:12 May 2025

Decision:The decision under review is set aside and, in substitution, the parties’ respective percentages of care will be recorded as:
• 70% to Ms Loiseau, applying in the assessment on and from 20 October 2022 until 18 December 2022; and
• 30% to Mr Muraille to be recorded as applying on and from 28 June 2023.
The Tribunal notes that the intervening care change on 19 December 2022 means that the application of Mr Muraille’s care percentage determination will have no practical effect in the assessment.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – change to the likely pattern of care – further separation after a reconciliation – existing percentage of care determinations revoked – new determination made – greater proportion of child’s expenses borne – decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Statement of Reasons

SUMMARY

Mr Muraille and Ms Loiseau (the parties) are the parents of [Child 1], who is 6 years old. A child support case was registered with Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) on 31 January 2022. Mr Muraille has been recorded as providing 100% care for the child since 24 May 2022, with Ms Loiseau providing the balance (100%) of care since 24 May 2022, which is reflective of child support suspending the case on the basis the parties reconciled for a period. Recording the percentages in that way is part of effectively putting the assessment on hold, until it can be determined whether it should recommence if the parties again separate or be terminated if the reconciliation is
long-lasting.
On 28 June 2023, Mr Muraille notified Child Support that a change to the care arrangements for the child had occurred from 20 October 2022, in that the parties’ reconcilliaton had ended on that date.
On 15 August 2023, an original decision-maker accepted that notification and recorded updated percentages of care of 15% to Mr Muraille and 85% to Ms Loiseau (the original decision). Those were the percentages of care used in the assessment prior to suspension of the case. That decision effectively contained two separate reviewable decisions. The first was to recommence the assessment as the parties’ reconciliation had ended. The second was to continue using the same percentages of care in the assessment that were used prior to it being suspended. Mr Muraille agreed with the first of those two aspects of the decision but disagreed with the second.
An objections officer considered an objection lodged by Mr Muraille on 6 September 2023 (which was within the prescribed time to do so),…

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 Muraille and Loiseau (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: [2025] ARTA 950
Decision Date: 12 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Muraille and Loiseau revolves around a dispute concerning the child support assessment for their 6-year-old child, [Child 1]. Mr Muraille, the applicant, contested the child support percentages of care as determined by the Child Support Registrar, with Ms Loiseau, the child's mother, being the respondent. The dispute was heard by Senior Member A Suthers in the Administrative Review Tribunal in Perth on 12 May 2025.

The primary legal issues in this case concerned whether there was a change in the pattern of care for the child, and if so, when it occurred. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the existing percentages of care should be revoked and, if so, what new determination of percentages of care should be attributed to the parties in respect of the child. The court also had to consider the date from which the administrative assessment should be amended to reflect the changes to the percentages of care.

The court found that there was indeed a change in the pattern of care for the child, which occurred when the parties' reconciliation ended on 20 October 2022. The existing percentages of care should be revoked as they did not accurately reflect the care provided by the parties. Based on the evidence and concessions made by the parties, the court determined the new percentages of care to be 70% for Ms Loiseau and 30% for Mr Muraille, effective from 20 October 2022 and 28 June 2023, respectively. However, the court noted that the intervening care change on 19 December 2022 meant that the application of Mr Muraille's care percentage determination would have no practical effect in the assessment.

The decision under review was set aside, and in substitution, the parties' respective percentages of care were recorded as 70% to Ms Loiseau, applying in the assessment on and from 20 October 2022 until 18 December 2022; and 30% to Mr Muraille, to be recorded as applying on and from 28 June 2023. The court noted that the intervening care change on 19 December 2022 meant that the application of Mr Muraille's care percentage determination would have no practical effect in the assessment.

Orders