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 reference to this assessment.
[1] Folio 58.
On 3 July 2024, Mr Norrington lodged his response and cross applied in respect of the high costs of maintaining contact with [Child 1] and as regards Ms Norrington’s income (folio 135).
On 15 July 2024, 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 (folio 359). As a consequence, Child Support set Mr Norrington’s adjusted taxable income at $67,900 from 18 March 2024 to 7 March 2026, Ms Norrington’s adjusted taxable income at $114,000 from 18 March 2024 to 7 March 2026, and reduced Mr Norrington’s annual rate of child support payable by $524 from 18 March 2024 to 7 March 2026.
On 9 August 2024, Ms Norrington lodged an objection to that decision (folio 383). On 19 September 2024, an objections officer of Child Support provided their decision (the Objection Decision) (folio 4). They decided to aside the initial decision and to set Mr Norrington’s adjusted taxable income at $82,000 from 18 March 2024 to 17 March 2025 and at $97,000 for the period 18 March 2025 to 31 December 2025. Ms Norrington’s adjusted taxable income was not varied and no reduction to the child support rate was made to reflect Mr Norrington’s costs of contact with [Child 1]. The new annual rate of child support per annum payable by Mr Norrington was $8,724.
On 2 October 2024, Mr Norrington applied to the AAT for review of the Objection Decision. On 7 April 2025, a telephone directions hearing was conducted by the Tribunal with Ms Norrington and Mr Norrington. For the reasons set out below, the directions hearing took place by way of shuttle hearing as did the substantive hearing of this matter. Directions to the parties were issued on 8 April 2025.
On 21 May 2025, the Tribunal conducted a hearing in this matter with Mr Norrington and Ms Norrington participating by MS Teams audio. Child Support did not participate and instead relied upon its documents. Before the Tribunal were hearing papers supplied by Child Support numbered 1 to 583, documents provided by Mr Norrington marked A1 to A120 and documents provided by Ms Norrington marked B1 to B285 (together, the hearing papers). Mr Norrington and Ms Norrington each gave evidence.
Given the terms of an ADVO obtained by Ms Norrington dated 31 July 2024 the Tribunal determined that it was appropriate that the hearing take place by way of shuttle hearing. That is, the Tribunal spoke separately, in separate telephone calls, with Mr Norrington and Ms Norrington. Care was taken by the Tribunal to ensure that evidence provided by one party was provided to the other party for comment during the course of the hearing, unless that party had already provided comment on the evidence or where the evidence was such that the Tribunal determined that it was neither appropriate nor necessary to request that parties comment.
After the hearing, the Tribunal issued directions to the parties. Ms Norrington provided further documents marked B286 to B577. Mr Norrington was given the opportunity to comment on those further documents, and provided submissions on 10 June 2025. Mr Norrington provided further documents marked A121 to A138. The Tribunal has had careful regard to all of the evidence and documents provided to it. Reference below is made only to the documents and evidence relevant to this decision.

ISSUES

It is open to one of the parties to a child support assessment to request a departure from that assessment, referred to as a “change of assessment”. The statutory provisions relevant to an application for a change of assessment are contained in Part 6A of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Act). Section 98C of the Act provides that a decision to depart from an administrative assessment of child support may be made if the following three requirements are met:
·      One, or more than one, of the grounds for departure (which are set out in subsection 117(2) of the Act) exist in the special circumstances of the case; and
·      It would be just and equitable as regards the child, the liable parent and the carer entitled to child support to make a particular determination (that is, a decision to make a change of assessment); and
·      It would be otherwise proper to make a particular determination.
Section 98S of the Act sets out the types of determinations that can be made.
The issues which arise in this case are:
· Does a ground exist for departure from the administrative assessment of child support? And if so,
· Would it be just and equitable and otherwise proper to make a particular determination?

CONSIDERATION

Issue 1: Is there a ground for departure?

Subsection 117(2) of the Act identifies a number of grounds for departure from a child support assessment, all of which are prefaced by the phrase “in the special circumstances of the case”. This means that the facts of the case must establish something which is special or out of the ordinary, and an administrative assessment will not be interfered with in the ordinary run of cases.[2]
[2] Gyselman & Gyselman [1991] FamCA 93.
The grounds for departure from the child support assessment under consideration in this matter are the grounds contained in:
·      Subparagraph 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Act, which refers to the income, property and financial resources of either parent (in this case, both Mr and Ms Norrington) (referred to as Reason 8A).
·      Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(i)) of the Act, which refers to the high costs of spending time with or communicating with the child (referred as Reason 1).
·      Subparagraph 117(2)(b)(ia) of the Act, which refers to the costs of maintaining a child being significantly affected because of the special needs of the child (referred to as Reason 2).
As Reason 8A in respect of Ms Norrington’s income, property and financial resources appears to be the ground of most significance in Mr Norrington’s application, the Tribunal will consider this ground first.

Reason 8A: income, property or financial resources – Ms Norrington

Mr Norrington says that the child support assessment does not reflect Ms Norrington’s income, property and financial resources.
As a preliminary comment, the Tribunal’s task is to consider Ms Norrington’s income, property and financial resources in the special circumstances of this case, and to reach conclusions on those issues on the balance of probabilities. It is not to undertake the work of a forensic accountant or to audit her financial position.[3]
[3] See for example, Shearer & Benson & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2011] FMCAfam 623, Morse & Potts (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 1305.
Ordinarily a child support assessment uses each parent’s taxable income. Ms Norrington’s taxable income for the 2021–22 financial year was $49,874 and for the 2022–23 financial year it was $54,713 (folio 515). As at the date of the hearing, Ms Norrington had yet to lodge her tax return for the 2023–24 financial year. In her Statement of Financial Circumstances dated 21 October 2024 (folio B276), Ms Norrington gave her income as $52,000 per annum, gross.

[Business 1]

Ms Norrington owns and operates a business called [Business 1], which manages the rental of [specified products].
Mr Norrington says that Ms Norrington is the sole director and shareholder, and that the business takes [nature of income deleted]. Mr Norrington said that the company was established when they were still together and that he helped establish it. He had no role in the company's finances and there was no bookkeeper, with Ms Norrington using an external accountant, [Accountants 1]. He took care of all of the [specified aspects of the maintenance]. He said that everything was a “tax write off”, with all costs including personal living costs subtracted from the company's income. He said that Ms Norrington would put food, electricity and household items into the company to reduce their tax to a minimum amount. He said that he knew this because he used to prepare receipts.
Ms Norrington told the Tribunal that she was managing [number of products] at the start of 2023, and now manages [fewer] including one that she owns. She said it is a three hour return journey from where she lives to [the main location], and with the number of [products] she is now managing, there is too much travelling to go every day. The [products] are advertised for rent on third party platforms such as [named platforms], and [Business 1] receives 50% net after booking fees. She confirmed that she is the sole director and shareholder, and is the sole employee except for very busy times when she brings in other people to assist. The accountants are [Accountants 1] who are linked into the business accounts and prepare her business activity statements. Ms Norrington appeared to accept that everything taxable that she could claim as a company expense she did so but denied that she attributed personal expenses to the company. [Accountants 1] go through the expenses and determine what is claimable. She pays herself a set salary, saying that she did not pay herself a salary for around five months in the 2022–23 financial year.
Ms Norrington said that for the first four to five years [Business 1] operated at a loss, and the company is still able to take account of tax credits as a consequence. [Business 1] has been struggling for the past two years, and at the moment she owes owners of the [products] around $30,000 and is relying on them being patient with her. She did not believe that there would be a profit for the 2023–24 financial year. She also owes an additional $12,500 to an owner of one of the [products], that she had previously owned and sold with a rental guarantee in 2023 (following a court order in the Family Court proceedings between the parties). The property is not meeting the rent set out in the rental guarantee.
[Business 1’s] tax return for the 2022–23 financial year gives a total income of $177,922 (folio 242). It lists total expenses of $118,602, of which the largest category, totalling $100,329, comprises “all other expenses”. It is reasonable to assume that includes the wage Ms Norrington paid herself but it is unclear what else it relates to. Ms Norrington told the Tribunal that it would be all the expenses. The tax return records that [Business 1] made a profit of $59,390 that year.
As at the date of the hearing, [Business 1] had yet to lodge its tax return for the 2023‑2024 financial year. Ms Norrington provided the Tribunal with [Business 1’s] activity statements:
·      For the period October 2023 to December 2023 (folio B24). This shows total sales for that quarter of $41,959.
·      For the period January 2024 to March 2024 (folio B28). This shows total sales for that quarter of $71,265. The Tribunal anticipates that this includes income from rentals over the Christmas holiday period.
·      For the period April 2024 to June 2024 (folio B30). This shows total sales for that quarter of $47,912.
·      For the period July 2024 to September 2024 (folio B31). This shows total sales for that quarter of $22,127.
·      For the period October 2024 to December 2024 (folio B32). This shows total sales for that quarter of $37,552.
The activity statements suggest total income for [Business 1] for the 2023–24 financial year could be around $183,000 (assuming income of around $22,000 for the low winter months, July to September). If one assumes expenses of around $118,000 again, that would lead to a profit of around $65,000. The activity statements suggest total income for the 2024–25 financial year may be lower (comparing the October to December period in each year and taking into account Ms Norrington’s evidence that the business is struggling). The Tribunal considers the issue of Ms Norrington potentially attributing personal expenses to the company and Ms Norrington’s ability to access the company's profits, below.

Property

Mr Norrington raised issues regarding property that Ms Norrington previously owned in [Country 1], but in circumstances where the property was sold apparently between 2016 and 2018, the Tribunal will not take this into account.
The orders made by the Family Court [in] September 2024 (folio A48) refer to the potential travel to [Country 1] to facilitate the sale of a property in [Town 1]. The Tribunal understands that this property is held in a superannuation fund for the parties, and will be part of the eventual property settlement between the parties and again does not take this into account.

Bank statements

Mr Norrington said that the bank statements provided by Ms Norrington show that Ms Norrington is both using company funds to pay personal expenses and incurring more personal expenditure than could be supported by her stated income. He said that the bank statements do not reflect the lifestyle of someone on $54,000 a year, referring to overseas holidays including to [Country 1] and the payment of $55,000 on a [Car 1], as well as mortgage of $3,500 a month.
Ms Norrington provided bank statements on her personal accounts as follows:

An account with [Bank 1] ending in 2417 for the following periods: 2 February 2024 to 1 May 2024 (folio 326), 2 May 2024 to 1 August 2024 (folio 397), 2 November 2024 to 1 February 2025 (B82). Ms Norrington’s pay from [Business 1] and her child support payments are paid into this account. There is evidence of some intermingling with company moneys (for example the credit from a [product] owner of $1,190 on 13 January 2025, folio B845).
A credit card account with [Bank 2] ending in 7729 for the period 14 April 2024 to 13 April 2025 with a credit limit of $2,500.[4] Ms Norrington told the Tribunal that she used this credit card for everything, and paid both personal and business expenses with it.
A credit card account with [Bank 2] ending in 2667 with a credit limit of $5,000 for the period 15 June 2024 to 14 May 2025 (folios B403 to B500). Ms Norrington told the Tribunal that this account was used for the children and she occasionally used it for personal expenses. Notwithstanding the Tribunal’s directions dated 8 April 2025 to provide statements on all accounts, these were only provided by Ms Norrington after the hearing. The Tribunal therefore did not have the opportunity to raise any questions with her on these statements. The Tribunal does note, however, that a significant number of the transactions appear to be personal expenses, supporting her statements to the Tribunal.
[A Country 1] bank account held with [Bank 3] ending in 8295 for the period 1 February 2025 to 30 April 2025 (folio B52) with only minimal amounts held in the account.
A credit card issued by [Bank 3] (folio B12), that Ms Norrington told the Tribunal she opened when she and Mr Norrington were married in [Country 1] in 2012 and that she used whenever she travelled to [Country 1] on holidays.
[4] Statement for 14 April 2024 to 13 May 2024 (folio B76), 14 May 2024 to 13 June 2024 (folio B198), 14 June 2024 to 13 July 2024 (folio b185), and 17 July 2024 to 13 August 2024 (folio B133), 14 August 2024 to 13 September 2024 (folio B262), 14 September 2024 to 13 October 2024 (folio B248), 14 October 2024 to 13 November 2024 (folio B234), 14 November 2024 to 13 December 2024 (folio B142), 14 December 2024 to 13 January 2025 (folio B170),14 January 2025 to 13 February 2025 (folio B155), 14 February 2025 to 13 March 2025 (folio B211) and 14 March 2025 to 13 April 2025 (folio B120).

Ms Norrington also provided statements on a business account held with the [Bank 1] in her name in relation to the operation of [Business 1] ending in 3715 (1 October 2023 to 30 December 2023, folio B336, 31 December 2023 to 30 March 2024, folio 291, and 1 July 2024 to 30 March 2025, beginning at folio B289). The transactions in this account consist primarily of credits reflecting [rental] payments on the [products] and payments to the [product] owners, as well as business related expenses such as cleaning costs and [Accountants 1]’s fees. There is never a significant balance of funds held in the account as moneys received for rental [products] are transferred out to the [products’] owners promptly. There are, however, debits that appear to be of a personal nature (see for example, a transfer to [Son A] – Ms Norrington’s son – of $400 on 1 January 2025 for a laptop, what looks to be either a loan to or a repayment of a loan from [Son A] of $5,500 on 4 January 2025, a $1,000 repayment of a loan from [Mr A] on 20 January 2025, mediation costs of $1,600). They do not, however, support Ms Norrington paying personal, day-to-day living expenses such as her mortgage, utilities or food from this account. As these statements were provided by Ms Norrington after the hearing, the Tribunal has not had the opportunity to discuss these statements with her.

Mr Norrington was given the opportunity to make submissions on these further statements however, and these begin at folio A124. The Tribunal has reviewed and taken into account these submissions.

The Tribunal’s consideration

The Child Support objections officer determined that they were “satisfied that Ms Norrington would not remain working in her business if she was not earning at least $1,500 per week, which is $300 per day or $78,000 per annum. If she did not choose to work for herself, she should be able to obtain employment working for someone else earning at least this amount.”
The Tribunal is not only considering Ms Norrington’s income; it is also considering her wider financial resources for the purposes of meeting her statutory obligation to support [Child 1]. The Courts have acknowledged that a self-employed person’s taxable income commonly does not correspond with his or her income or financial resources for child support purposes, stating:[5]
There is a body of cases where simple reference to a person’s tax return does not provide an appropriate quantification of their capacity to provide financial support. Most commonly this occurs in cases involving the self-employed, where it is well accepted that legal structures and arrangements may generate taxable income that doesn’t properly reflect the realistic capacity of the person to provide financial support for their children.
[5] Voss & Child Support Registrar & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2009] FMCAfam 1296.
The Tribunal notes the submissions made by Mr Norrington as to what entries in Ms Norrington’s bank statements he considered were, and were not, likely to be business or personal expenses. The Tribunal reiterates that it is not required to conduct an audit of either party’s financial position, and it has not done so. Nor is the Tribunal required to conduct an audit of [Business 1’s] accounts or to interrogate decisions made in the conduct of the business as regards whether the company should be profitable. Nor is it the Tribunal’s role to interrogate decisions Ms Norrington has made as regards money she has received (for example from the sale of a car) or loans she has taken out with family and friends.
Mr Norrington raised a number of issues both during the hearing and in his submissions to the Tribunal regarding Ms Norrington’s lifestyle being in excess of the amounts she says she earned. He referred to a trip to [Country 1], which Ms Norrington told the Tribunal was booked before the breakdown of the marriage. He referred to the sale of a car for around $50,000, and Ms Norrington provided the Tribunal after the hearing with evidence of receipt of that money, folio B559. He also commented on her general level of expenses. The Tribunal has considered Mr Norrington’s submissions but notes also the evidence that Ms Norrington has provided to the Tribunal of significant loans taken out from friends and family members. The Tribunal does not consider that Ms Norrington’s expenses alone justify a variation to her income for child support purposes.
It is clear on the evidence before the Tribunal that there is intermingling between [Business 1] funds and the personal funds of Ms Norrington. Ms Norrington appeared to concede as much. That, and the fact that Ms Norrington is the sole director and shareholder of [Business 1], supports a finding that any retained profits of [Business 1] are capable of forming part of Ms Norrington’s financial resources for the purposes of determining the child support assessment. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any profits being used, for example, to invest in the development of the company.
The Tribunal does, however, query whether [Business 1] is making a profit at present. It is difficult for the Tribunal to make concrete findings in the absence of audited accounts. The Tribunal estimates above a profit of $65,000 for the 2023–24 financial year but notes the evidence Ms Norrington gave to the Tribunal regarding the $30,000 owed to [product] owners, which will need to be paid from company funds. That would leave profits of (at the highest) $35,000. That would suggest income and financial resources together of around $79,000.[6] (The Tribunal also notes the $12,500 owed by Ms Norrington pursuant to a rental guarantee. The Tribunal cannot conclude, on the evidence before it, whether this would be a proper expense of the company but recognises that, if as the Tribunal has concluded, Ms Norrington is able to draw on the company's profits for her personal use, she would be able to use these funds to pay that guarantee.)
[6] $35,000 retained profit plus around $44,000 net income. Amounts paid by way of child support or family tax benefit go to support the child and are not included in a party’s income or financial resources.
As regards the 2024–25 financial year, the Tribunal accepts that the number of [products] managed by [Business 1] has dropped to [number] and notes Ms Norrington’s evidence regarding the difficulties she is facing in keeping the company afloat. It may be that there is no retained profit in this year and that Ms Norrington’s income is the only amount available to be taken into account.
The child support assessment in place as at the date of Ms Norrington’s application for a change of assessment on 18 March 2024 used Ms Norrington’s assessed income for the 2022–23 financial year of $54,713 (folio 58).
Whilst the Tribunal considers that theoretically Ms Norrington could draw on retained profits of [Business 1] it is by no means clear, however, on the evidence before the Tribunal, that any profit is being made. Nor is there any evidence to establish what that profit actually is.
Further, if one uses Mr Norrington’s actual taxable income for the 2023–24 financial year of $74,885 (folio 513), substituting an income of $79,000 for Ms Norrington’s income into the child support assessment results in only a minor decrease (of around $364) in the child support payable by Mr Norrington.
In all the circumstances therefore, the Tribunal considers that this ground of departure is not established in the special circumstances of the case. It will, however, take into account its conclusions as regards Ms Norrington’s financial resources when considering the appropriate departure.

Reason 1: The high costs of maintaining contact with [Child 1]

Mr Norrington raised this ground in his initial cross application to Child Support made on 3 July 2024. This requires consideration of whether, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected because of high costs involved in enabling a parent to spend time with, or communicate with, the child.
Mr Norrington raised in this regard the costs of travelling from South Australia (where he lives) to Victoria (where [Child 1] lives) to see [Child 1] and the costs of maintaining telephone and video contact with her. He raises in this regard accommodation and transport costs, as well as telephone and Internet costs. Generally, the accounts of the costs must be reasonable[7] and in order for the costs of contact to be considered high, they must total more than 5% of the parent’s adjusted taxable income within the applicable child support period, which is usually the child support period in which the costs are or will be incurred.[8]
[7] Gyselman and Gyselman [1991] FamCA 93.
[8] Refer topic 5.2.1 of the Child Support Guide. The Child Support Guide is part of the Guides to Social Policy Law, a collection of publications issued by the Australian Government and designed to assist decision‑makers administering social policy law. It is persuasive but has no legislative force. However, the Tribunal should take into account government policy as long as it is not inconsistent with the provisions and objects of the relevant legislation: Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179.
Interim orders made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court (the Family Court) dated [in] September 2023 provided for Mr Norrington to see [Child 1] on the second Saturday of each month from 10 am to 3 pm, and on 23 December 2023 again from 10 am to 3 pm, and also by way of FaceTime at 5:30 pm each Friday and on [Child 1’s] birthday and Christmas Day (folio 172). The costs of contact were to be borne by Mr Norrington.
Orders made by the Family Court dated [in] September 2024 provided that, commencing on 12 October 2024, [Child 1] would spend the second Saturday of each month with her father from 10 am to 3 pm, to take place in Victoria (folio A43). [Child 1] would spend from 12 pm on 18 December 2024 to 3 pm on Friday 20 December 2024 with her father. In 2025, [Child 1] would spend from 12 pm on 5 July to 3 pm on 6 July and from 12 pm on 22 November 2025 to 3 pm on 23 November 2025 with her father, in South Australia. [Child 1’s] travel to South Australia was to be at Ms Norrington’s cost.
Orders made by the Family Court dated [in] March 2025 made final orders in respect of Mr Norrington’s access to [Child 1] (folio A31). The orders provided that [Child 1’s] time with her father was to be as agreed between the parents in writing and, failing agreement, Mr Norrington would have contact with [Child 1] every second Saturday each month from 10 am to 3 pm in Victoria. Mr Norrington would also have contact with [Child 1] for two days in December in South Australia (with the particular dates depending on whether the year was an odd or even number), but in each case the contact is to be between 10 am and 5 pm, that is, no overnight stay. Mr Norrington is to be responsible for the cost of [Child 1’s] travel.
Therefore, the Tribunal considers it reasonable to assume that:
· From 20 September 2023 to 30 March 2025, Mr Norrington travelled to [Victorian Town 2] from South Australia every second Saturday, and incurred the costs of that travel. The costs of [Child 1’s] travel to South Australia were born by Ms Norrington.
· From 31 March 2025, Mr Norrington continued to incur the costs of travelling every second weekend from South Australia to Victoria, and took on the costs of [Child 1’s] travel to South Australia.
Ms Norrington bore the costs of [Child 1’s] travel to South Australia from 12 October 2024 to 30 March 2025. Given the final orders do not provide for [Child 1] to be in the overnight care of Mr Norrington at any point going forward, Ms Norrington will presumably need to continue to travel with [Child 1] and incur both travel and accommodation costs. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to take into account, in considering the costs of Mr Norrington maintaining contact with [Child 1], the costs of [Child 1’s] travel to South Australia.
Mr Norrington told the Tribunal that he does not have a personal car but uses his company car when he travels to see [Child 1]. Mr Norrington has not claimed accommodation costs as apparently he travels to and from [Victorian Town 2] in a day.
Mr Norrington raised with the Tribunal the cost of maintaining telephone contact and access over the Internet with [Child 1], saying that he speaks to her every Thursday in accordance with court orders and at other times he texts her. Whilst it is, generally speaking, open to the Tribunal to take costs of this nature into account, the Tribunal considers that the costs would need to be incurred in addition to Mr Norrington’s everyday costs. In circumstances where Mr Norrington presumably uses his phone for personal purposes and there is no evidence of any costs incurred in respect of his telephone and Internet use in connection with his contact with [Child 1] over and above the amount he would have to pay each month in any event, the Tribunal has determined not to take this category of costs into account.
Mr Norrington provided Child Support with evidence supporting that, over the child support period of 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024 (366 days), his annual cost of flights were $3,243, parking $432 and airport bus $768. The Tribunal agrees with Child Support’s calculations of the amount of those costs attributable to this child support period, $4,454. Mr Norrington’s taxable income for the 2023–24 financial year was $74,885. Applied across the child support period, it is $75,090. The costs of maintaining contact with [Child 1] within the child support period are therefore 5.9% of his taxable income and the Tribunal finds that the costs are significant.
The second child support period is from 1 October 2024 to 31 December 2025 (457 days). From the evidence, Mr Norrington provided Child Support, his flights are estimated to total $3,243 a year, parking $432 and airport bus $768, a total of $4,443 a year and $5,563 across the child support period. Mr Norrington’s income from 31 March 2025 is $129,890 and the Tribunal will use the estimated figure for taxable income of $128,390.[9] Over the child support period, the figure for income is $160,751. The costs of maintaining contact are therefore 3.46% and the Tribunal finds that they are not significant within this child support period.
[9] Allowing for $1,500 of deductions.
The Tribunal therefore finds that this ground for departure is established in the special circumstance of the case, but in relation to the first child support period only.

Other grounds for departure

As the Tribunal has found that a ground for departure from the existing assessment (that is, the assessment in place as at 18 March 2024) is established, it will consider the other grounds for departure raised by the parties in the context of consideration of whether a departure from that assessment is just and equitable and otherwise proper.

Issue 2: Is a departure just and equitable?

As the Tribunal has found that a ground for departure exists in the special circumstances of the case, it must next consider whether a departure would be just and equitable as regards the children, Mr Norrington as the liable parent, and Ms Norrington as the carer entitled to child support, pursuant to subsection 117(4) of the Act.
The Tribunal must have regard to the following:
·      The nature of the duty of a parent to maintain a child (set out in section 3 of the Act). This duty has priority over all commitments other than those necessary for a parent to support themselves or any other child they have a duty to maintain.
·      The proper needs of the child.
·      The income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the child and of each parent.
·      The commitment of each parent to support himself or herself, and any other child or person that they have a duty to maintain.
·      The direct and indirect costs incurred by the carer in providing care for the child.
·      Any hardship that would be caused to the child or the parents/carer by the making of, or the refusal to make, a determination.
The Tribunal is not always required to set out its consideration in relation to each factor separately,[10] particularly where it has been dealt with elsewhere in its decision. It is also permissible to group together relevant considerations. However, the Tribunal has considered and taken into account each of these factors in reaching its decision, even if not specifically stated.
[10] Gyselman & Gyselman [1991] FamCA 93.

Mr Norrington’s financial position

Mr Norrington’s taxable income for the 2022–23 financial year was $16,785 and for the 2023–24 financial year it was $74,885 (folio 513). Mr Norrington commenced a new role in October 2023 with a salary of $100,000[11], hence the significant increase in his income. Mr Norrington’s current salary is $129,890 per annum (pay slips beginning at folio A27), incorporating a salary increase from March 2025. Mr Norrington applied deductions totalling $1,400 to his income for the 2023–24 financial year.[12] Assuming the same level of deductions for the 2024–25 financial year (say, $1,500) would make an estimate of his taxable income for the 2024–25 financial year $128,390.
[11] Payslips beginning at folio 448.
[12] Tax return, folio 436.
In Ms Norrington’s initial application for a change of assessment made on 18 March 2024, she raised Reason 8A in respect of Mr Norrington’s income, saying that he is employed full time as [an occupation 1] and his income was not reflected in the assessment. The Objection Decision set Mr Norrington’s adjusted taxable income at $82,000 for the period of 18 March 2024 to 17 March 2025 and $97,000 for the period 18 March 2025 until 31 December 2025.
Mr Norrington told the Tribunal that he accepted that his income had risen but wished to have the costs of his relocation after separation taken into account as well as the high costs of maintaining contact with [Child 1].

Mr Norrington’s costs of relocation

A party to a child support assessment can apply to have additional income that was earned after separation excluded from their adjusted taxable income for child support purposes in certain circumstances.[13] The exclusion of additional income post-separation is limited to the first three years after the parents last separated.[14]
[13] Section 44 of the Act.
[14] Subsection 44(3) of the Act.
Mr Norrington said he left the former family home in June or July 2023, and estimated the costs of relocating to be $15,000 (although he commented that it could be higher, around $20,000). The costs related to buying clothes and possessions, but he did not have documents to support the amounts he spent, as a lot of it was based on handouts from other people.
Ms Norrington told the Tribunal that Mr Norrington took all of his personal items with him.
The Tribunal accepts (as the Child Support objections officer did) that relocating from Victoria to South Australia would necessarily carry with it relocation costs and finds in principle that it is appropriate to make a reduction to Mr Norrington’s post separation income for the first child support period under consideration in this matter, 18 March 2024 to 17 March 2025.
As regards the amount of that reduction, the Tribunal considers (as Child Support did) that $15,000 is an appropriate amount of Mr Norrington’s post-separation income to exclude. It is a reasonable amount to provide for travel costs, initial payments of rent and rental bond, and household items. In the absence of any evidence as to amounts actually spent, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to set it any higher than $15,000.

Mr Norrington’s expenditure and hardship considerations

Mr Norrington provided an undated Statement of Financial Circumstances (folio A81). That indicates that he does not own any property and has no financial resources. He has a company car. The Tribunal understands that the financial issues in respect of Mr and Ms Norrington’s divorce had, as at the date of the hearing, yet to be determined finally by the Family Court. The parties referred in the hearing to a property in [Country 1] that is to be sold.
Mr Norrington included as a liability his share of the mortgage on the former marital home, where Ms Norrington lives with [Child 1]. Ms Norrington said that he was not in fact paying his share of the mortgage and M Norrington appeared to concede this. He owed around $2,179 in child support and had no other significant liabilities. Mr Norrington estimated his weekly expenditure to be $2,323 of which $1,346 was said to be “other commitments Lawyer and court fees”. He told the Tribunal that this is the amount he puts to one side each week towards these costs.
Mr Norrington provided the Tribunal with bank statements on a credit card account with [Bank 1] ending in 2837 for the period 14 November 2024 to 12 March 2025 (folio A1) and on an account with the [Bank 1] ending in 4064 for the period 1 July 2024 to 10 March 2025 into which his salary is paid (folio A18). They support a lower rent than estimated by Mr Norrington in his Statement of Financial Circumstances ($200 rather than $300) but are otherwise broadly supportive of his evidence.
As regards the hardship an adverse decision might cause him, Mr Norrington told the Tribunal that he is trying to get his life back together with no assets. He has paid $150,000 in legal fees and has a further projected $50,000 to go. He is trying to save a deposit to buy a home. He considered that maintaining or increasing the amount of child support he is required to pay would not show a sense of fairness and that it would be unfair for him to bear the burden of Ms Norrington’s expenditure.

Ms Norrington’s financial position

Ms Norrington provided a Statement of Financial Circumstances dated 21 October 2024 (folio B276) and told the Tribunal that there had been no significant changes since then. That evidenced that Ms Norrington owns property worth $1.1 million (the former marital home where she lives with [Child 1] and the [product rented through] [Business 1]) and has total liabilities of $498,000. In addition to her income, she receives $800 a fortnight in family tax benefit, as well as child support from Mr Norrington. She said that, of the $727 a fortnight he is required to pay, she receives $48.
Ms Norrington owes around $8,000 in income tax that she is repaying in weekly instalments, $10,000 on a loan she took out to stop foreclosure of the mortgage of her home, and $7,500 in credit card debt. The documents Ms Norrington provided after the hearing include a series of loan agreements with [Mr B] executed on various dates between 28 May 2024 to 14 May 2025 that together provide for [Mr B] to lend her US$5,954 and AU$13,500 (beginning at folio B370). They also include part of a loan agreement with [Mr A] dated 2 August 2024, lending her $10,198 (folio B547) and repayments in instalments of $1,000 of that loan (folios B552 and B553). The documents also evidence Ms Norrington paying a total of $13,500 to her son, [Son A], and [Ms C], apparently in repayment of moneys lent to her, with the payments made between 23 May 2023 and 24 June 2024 (beginning at folio B389).
Ms Norrington estimated her weekly household expenses to be $2,329. As well as [Child 1], her son [Son A] also lives with her. He works, earning around $350 a week. Nothing in the breakdown of Ms Norrington’s expenses appears out of the ordinary. The Tribunal notes that its review of the bank statements provided by Ms Norrington suggests that some expenses might be attributed to [Business 1] but that major expenses such as the mortgage and utilities are not.
As regards the hardship that a decision adverse to her might result in, Ms Norrington said that at the moment she could lose her house, she cannot afford to buy proper food for her children and is borrowing money, which is not ideal. She said that she is going backwards at a rapid rate.

The special needs of the child [Child 1]

Ms Norrington identified, in her application for a change of assessment dated 18 March 2024 [Child 1’s] special needs arising from her ADHD and orthodontic costs. This requires consideration as to whether, in the special circumstances of the case, the costs of maintaining the child are significantly affected because of the special needs of the child.
“Special needs” is not defined in the Act. The Child Support Guide[15] gives as examples of a special need, a condition that is distinct from the usual childhood illnesses suffered by a child, as well as a long‑term or short‑term physical, mental or learning disability. The Child Support Guide also identifies orthodontic treatment as a potential special need.
[15] In section 5.2.2 and relying upon the decision of Lightfoot v Hampson (1996) FLC 92-663.
[Child 1’s] diagnosis of ADHD is supported by a letter from [a named] paediatrician, dated 4 July 2024 (folio 260). Ms Norrington told Child Support that [Child 1’s] ADHD medication costs $100 a month, so, $1,200 a year.
As with the costs of maintaining contact with the child, generally, in order for costs to be significant they must be 5% or more of the parent’s income across the relevant child support period. Over the child support period of 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024 (366 days) and using Ms Norrington’s taxable income of $54,713 for the 2022–23 financial year (the last year of available information), the Tribunal estimates that [Child 1’s] ADHD medication comprised around 2.19% of Ms Norrington’s income.[16]
[16] Income across the 366 days in the child support period totals $54,863 and ADHD costs across that period total $1,203.
Ms Norrington told Child Support that [Child 1’s] orthodontic needs were $275 a month. She did not provide Child Support with any documents in support of this. In the documents provided by Ms Norrington after the hearing, she provided a letter from [Orthodontists 1] dated 28 May 2025 that quoted $7,700 for orthodontic treatment (folio B509). Although that letter does not identify the orthodontic treatment, the income at folio B505 shows that the treatment is full arch banding and that Ms Norrington has paid $6,930 of the total cost. Mr Norrington said, in his final set of submissions, that he had no issue with paying 50% of [Child 1’s] orthodontic treatment (folio A128).
The Tribunal accepts this orthodontic treatment as a special need of [Child 1] that will cost in total $7,700 and finds accordingly. Across the child support period of 1 October 2024 to 31 December 2025 (457 days) and using $54,713 as Ms Norrington’s income again (in the absence of more up-to-date information), that amounts to around 11% of her income.[17] The Tribunal therefore finds that it is significant and will address its incorporation in the child support assessment below.
[17] Income across the 457 days in the child support period is $68,504.

The proposed departure

Date of departure

The Tribunal generally considers that the preferable course is to make a change of assessment that leaves the parties with certainty as regards the child support payable for as long as possible. It considers that the appropriate date to commence any departure is 18 March 2024, the date Ms Norrington lodged her application for a change of assessment.
To provide as much certainty as possible, the Tribunal considers the departure should remain in place until 31 December 2025, which is the date to which the Objection Decision extended the change of assessment. The Tribunal recognises that this is less than six months away but also considers that the evidence does not support a longer departure, noting in particular the lack of recent evidence as to Ms Norrington’s taxable income or [Business 1’s] audited accounts.

The departure under consideration

Given the Tribunal’s findings above, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to set Mr Norrington’s adjusted taxable income for the period 18 March 2024 to 17 March 2025 at his actual taxable income of $74,885, but then to exclude $15,000 of that post separation income, making his adjusted taxable income $59,855. For the period 18 March 2025 to 31 December 2025, noting the increase in Mr Norrington’s salary, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to set his adjusted taxable income at $128,390 (that is, his salary less $1,500 deductions).
As set out above, the Tribunal has determined that a departure is not warranted in respect of Ms Norrington’s adjusted taxable income.
The Tribunal has considered how best to take into account Mr Norrington’s costs of maintaining contact with [Child 1] in the period 18 March 2024 to 30 September 2024. In circumstances where Ms Norrington also bore additional costs in this period (the cost of [Child 1’s] travel from 20 September 2023 to 30 March 2025) and where the Tribunal has already made a significant reduction to his taxable income for his relocation costs to set his adjusted taxable income at $59,855, the Tribunal has determined not to make an adjustment to the child support assessment for the contact costs.
In respect of the cost of [Child 1’s] orthodontic treatment, totalling $7,700, the Tribunal considers that the appropriate course is to apportion the cost equally between the parents, which means that the Tribunal considers that the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Norrington should be increased by $3,850. That increase should, however, only commence from 1 May 2025 as Ms Norrington did not incur the cost any earlier than May 2025.
In summary, therefore, the Tribunal has under consideration setting a departure from the existing assessment in place as at 18 March 2024 as follows:

Setting Mr Norrington’s adjusted taxable income at $59,855 for the period 18 March 2024 to 17 March 2025
Setting Mr Norrington’s adjusted taxable income at $128,390 for the period 18 March 2025 to 31 December 2025.
Increasing the annual rate of child support payable by Mr Norrington by $3,850 for the period 1 May 2025 to 31 December 2025.

Impact on the parties of a departure

The child support assessment in place prior to the change of assessment decision, for the period 1 September 2022 to 30 November 2023, provided that Mr Norrington was to pay child support at an annual rate of $493.
The Objection Decision varied that assessment to set Mr Norrington’s adjusted taxable income at $82,000 for the period 18 March 2024 to 17 March 2024, and at $97,000 for the period 18 March 2025 to 31 December 2025. The objections officer calculated that the new annual rate would be $8,724 and that would create $1,533.81 in arrears for Mr Norrington.
A departure of the nature under contemplation by the Tribunal would mean, on the Tribunal’s estimation and by comparison with the Objection Decision, further arrears payable by Mr Norrington of around $2,200. It will also result in an increased rate of child support going forward, to take into account the significant increase in his income and his share of [Child 1’s] orthodontic costs.
Any departure from a child support assessment that results in one party having to pay arrears and having to pay additional amounts going forward will have an impact on that paying party. However, in the present case, the Tribunal notes Mr Norrington’s current annual income. The Tribunal has also sought to address any potential hardship that might be caused by a significant amount of arrears, by using Mr Norrington’s taxable income for the 2023–24 financial year, notwithstanding the fact that his income was significantly higher, around $100,000, for three-quarters of that financial year. Taken overall, the Tribunal does not consider that a departure of this nature should cause Mr Norrington hardship.
Certain hardship would be caused to Ms Norrington and the child [Child 1] were the administrative assessment to not accurately reflect Mr Norrington’s capacity to support [Child 1] or her special needs.

Other factors

The Tribunal is satisfied that [Child 1], aged 11, does not earn any income or otherwise have financial resources. The Tribunal finds that the departure under consideration would not be unjust or inequitable for the child, [Child 1].

Conclusion on departure

The Tribunal is satisfied that the administrative assessment is unfair given the costs Ms Norrington has incurred in respect of the special needs of [Child 1], namely her orthodontic requirements, and that it is also unfair given Mr Norrington’s income. These matters result in an unjust and inequitable level of child support given the circumstances of each parent. For all these reasons, it is just and equitable to depart from the administrative assessment in the manner proposed by the Tribunal.

Issue 3: Is a departure otherwise proper?

As the Tribunal has determined that it is just and equitable to make a departure from the administrative assessment, it must next consider whether a departure is otherwise proper, under subsection 117(5) of the Act.
This involves consideration of the impact on the community a departure from the administrative assessment would have, noting again the parents’ primary duty to maintain the child. Ms Norrington receives family tax benefit and an increase in child support payable to Ms Norrington will lead to a decrease in family tax benefit payable to her. This means a decrease in public funds required to support the child, [Child 1].

100.Given this and the overarching duty on parents to support their children, the Tribunal therefore finds that a departure from the administrative assessment is otherwise proper.
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.

Date of hearing:

Wednesday, 21 May 2025