Neville and Coach (Child support)

The case of *Neville and Coach* concerned a dispute over child support payments. The payer had made payments to the payee’s sister’s bank account, which were ultimately received by the payee. Both parties intended these payments to satisfy the payer's child support liability for the relevant period. The decision under review was set aside and substituted.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether payments made by a child support payer to a third party, who then passed them on to the payee, could be considered valid payments that discharged the payer's child support obligations. The court had to determine if such non-agency payments satisfied the requirements for payment under the relevant legislation.

The court reasoned that while the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 generally contemplates payments being made directly to the payee or through the Registrar, it does not preclude the validity of payments made through an intermediary, provided the intention of both parties was for the payment to discharge the child support liability and the payment was in fact received by the payee. The court applied the principle that substance should prevail over form, and where the clear intention and effect of the transaction was to satisfy the child support debt, the method of payment should not invalidate it. The court found that the payments made to the payee's sister, and subsequently received by the payee, were intended to and did satisfy the child support liability.