PARKER & JACKS (No.2)

Case [2009] FMCAfam 743

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PARKER & JACKS (No.2) [2009] FMCAfam 743
CHILD SUPPORT – Application to vary or discharge child support agreement – whether agreement should be varied or discharged – claim for adult child maintenance – non disclosure.
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) ss.98, 117, 117(2), 117(4), 117(5), 124, 129
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss.66H, 66L, 66G
Wild and Ballard (1997) FLC 92-771
In the Marriage of Hickey [2003] FamCA 385
Luciano & Luciano [2000] FMCAfam 401
S & S [2005] FMCAfam 78
Gilmore & Gilmore (1995) FLC 92-951
Byrant & Byrant (1996) FLC 92-690
Gyselman & Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279
Parker & Jacks (No.1) [2009] FMCA 290
Cosgrove v Cosgrove (1996) FLC 92-700
Chang & Su (2002) FLC 93-117
Applicant: MR PARKER
Respondent: MS JACKS
File number: MLC 236 of 2008
Judgment of: O’Sullivan FM
Hearing dates: 5 November 2008 & 19 March 2009
Date of last submission: 7 May 2009
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 22 July 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M. Pavone
Solicitors for the Applicant: Littleton Hackford & D’Alessandro
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms B. Tulloch
Solicitors for the Respondent: Jane M Curtis & Associates

ORDERS

  1. That clause 3 of the Child Support Agreement dated 3 September 2002 be varied by deleting the words “one half of” therein appearing.

  2. That the applicant and the respondent each pay half of the rental payments for a flat for [X] and [Y].

  3. That the respondent and her solicitor separately file and serve submissions as to why an order as to the costs of the proceedings ought not be made against them within 14 days.

  4. The applicant file and serve any submissions in reply within a further 14 days.

  5. All extant applications be otherwise dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Parker & Jacks (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLC 236 of 2008

MR PARKER

Applicant

And

MS JACKS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Mr Parker (“the applicant”) has applied to the Court for orders concerning a Child Support Agreement (“the Agreement”) he made with Ms Jacks (“the respondent”).

  2. In his application filed 10 January 2008 the applicant sought the following orders:

    “1.That the Child Support Agreement made 3 September 2002 and accepted by the Child Support Registrar be registered with the Court as an Order, for the purposes of Part 5, made by consent under Section 124 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.

    2.That paragraph 3 of the Child Support Agreement made


    2 September 2002 be varied pursuant to Section 98 and Section 129 of the said Act to provide that the Wife pay or cause to be paid all reasonable [G] School fees and education expenses associated with the child [Z] born [in] 1994 for the 2007 academic year and continuing until any of the events referred to in paragraph 6 of the Agreement occur.”

  3. The respondent sought that…

Continue reading PARKER & JACKS (No.2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
PARKER & JACKS (No.2) [2009] FMCAfam 743
Case
[2009] FMCAfam 743
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Parker and Jacks, the matter was before the Family Court of Australia. The dispute revolved around the interpretation and enforcement of a Child Support Agreement dated 3 September 2002. The parties were in conflict over the terms of the agreement, particularly concerning the financial responsibilities related to the rental of a flat for the children, [X] and [Y].

The court was required to determine the legal interpretation of the clause in the agreement and whether it should be varied. Specifically, the court needed to decide if the words "one half of" in clause 3 of the agreement should be deleted, thereby altering the financial obligations of the parties. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate division of rental payments for the flat housing the children and address the issue of costs associated with the proceedings.

In its judgment, the court found that the plain language of clause 3 of the Child Support Agreement did not support the inclusion of the words "one half of." The court held that the parties should each bear an equal share of the rental payments for the flat. Furthermore, the court ordered that the respondent and her solicitor provide submissions as to why costs should not be awarded against them, with the applicant then having the opportunity to respond. Ultimately, the court dismissed all other extant applications.

The court's orders included the variation of clause 3 by removing the phrase "one half of," an equal division of rental payments for the flat, and specific timelines for cost submissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That clause 3 of the Child Support Agreement dated 3 September 2002 be varied by deleting the words “one half of” therein appearing.

2.

That the applicant and the respondent each pay half of the rental payments for a flat for [X] and [Y].

3.

That the respondent and her solicitor separately file and serve submissions as to why an order as to the costs of the proceedings ought not be made against them within 14 days.

4.

The applicant file and serve any submissions in reply within a further 14 days.

5.

All extant applications be otherwise dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.