Norrington and Norrington (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 1601

Norrington and Norrington (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1601 (10 July 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Norrington

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Ms Norrington

Tribunal Number: 2024/AC028645
Tribunal: General Member A Ryding
Place:Sydney
Date:10 July 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides:
a)    Mr Norrington’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $59,855 for the period 18 March 2024 to 17 March 2025
b)    Mr Norrington’s adjusted taxable income is varied to $128,390 for the period 18 March 2025 to 31 December 2025.
c)    The annual rate of child support payable by Mr Norrington is increased by $3,850 for the period 1 May 2025 to 31 December 2025.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure from the administrative assessment – income, property and financial resources – special needs of the child – earning capacity – high costs of maintaining contact – provisional adjusted taxable income – special circumstances – costs of relocation post separation – 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

BACKGROUND

From 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
This is an application for review of a decision of Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) dated 19 September 2024 on an application for a departure from a child support assessment.
The applicant, Mr Norrington, and one of the other parties to this application, Ms Norrington, are the parents of [Child 1] (born [in] August 2011). There has been a child support assessment in place since 15 June 2023, collected by Child Support from the beginning of the case.
Within the period of time applicable to this matter, [Child 1] is recorded as being in the above primary care of Ms Norrington (100%).
On 18 March 2024, Ms Norrington applied for a change of assessment (folio 60 of the hearing papers), the first change of assessment applied for by the parties. The grounds relied upon were the special needs of [Child 1] and Mr Norrington’s income, financial resources and earning capacity. As at that date, Mr Norrington was assessed as paying child support at the annual rate of $493 for the period 1 October 2023 to 31 December 2024.[1] Where this decision refers to “the existing child support assessment”, it is a…

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 Norrington and Norrington (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 1601
Decision Date: 10 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this case, Mr Norrington and Ms Norrington, were the parents of a child born in 2011. There had been a child support assessment in place since June 2023, collected by Child Support from the beginning of the case. In March 2024, Ms Norrington applied for a change of assessment, the grounds relied upon being the special needs of the child and Mr Norrington’s income, financial resources and earning capacity. In July 2024, Mr Norrington lodged his response and cross-applied in respect of the high costs of maintaining contact with the child and as regards Ms Norrington’s income. In September 2024, an objections officer of Child Support determined that Ms Norrington had established a ground for departure in respect of Mr Norrington’s income and Mr Norrington had established a ground for departure in respect of the high contact costs and in respect of Ms Norrington’s income. The objections officer varied Mr Norrington’s adjusted taxable income and the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Norrington. Ms Norrington lodged an objection to that decision and the objections officer varied Mr Norrington’s adjusted taxable income further. On 2 October 2024, Mr Norrington applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the Objection Decision. The Tribunal found that there was a ground for departure from the existing assessment in the special circumstances of the case, namely the high costs of Mr Norrington maintaining contact with the child. The Tribunal found that a departure from the existing assessment was just and equitable and otherwise proper. The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decided to vary Mr Norrington’s adjusted taxable income and the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Norrington.

Orders