Newell v Child Support Registrar

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEWELL v CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR [2015] FCCA 2815

Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Departure Prohibition Order – stay – no jurisdiction to order stay – the merits of the application would not justify a stay if jurisdiction was present.

Legislation:

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Child Support (Registration & Collection) Act 1988, ss.72Q, 72S, 111C

Jones v Child Support Registrar [2007] FCA 1732
Yathopoulos & Komine & Anor [2013] FCCA 267

Applicant: MR NEWELL

Respondent: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

File Number: BRG 829 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Cassidy

Hearing date: 29 September 2015

Date of Last Submission: 29 September 2015

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 2 October 2015

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person.

Solicitors for the Child Support Registrar: Mr C Bishop of Department of Human Services

ORDERS

1. That the oral application made on 29 September 2015 by the applicant to stay the Departure Prohibition Order dated 24 June 2015 be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Newell v Child Support Registrar is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 829 of 2015

MR NEWELL

Applicant

And

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a matter where the Court heard an oral application made on 29 September 2015 for the stay of a Departure Prohibition Order that restrains Mr Newell from travelling outside of Australia.  It was agreed by the parties that I could hear it on the first return date, so it proceeded that afternoon on the oral application.  The respondent Child Support Registrar (“Registrar”) submitted through Mr Bishop that I had no jurisdiction to stay the operation of the Departure Prohibition Order in a section 72Q appeal of the Child Support (Registration & Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) (Collection Act).

2. I note that there have been a number of cases that looked at a stay of a Departure Prohibition Order in a section 72Q appeal and, in particular, Jones v Child Support Registrar [2007] FCA 1732 and Yathopoulos & Komine & Anor [2013] FCCA 267. Neither of those cases dealt with the jurisdiction point and both of them implied that the Court did have the power to consider a stay in the circumstances of those cases.

Background

1. The background is summarised in the written submissions provided by the Registrar in Court on 29 September 2015:

   “4. The Applicant is the father of two children, X (born (omitted) 2007) and Y (born (omitted) 2009), in respect of whom he is liable to pay child support.

   5. The child support assessment was registered on 2 August 2010.

   6. On 24 June 2015 Mr S, a delegate of the Registrar, issued a DPO against the Applicant. As at 1 June 2015 the Applicant had an outstanding child support liability in the amount of $29,858.71 and late payment penalties in the amount of $5,787.37. Therefore the total child support debt was in…