Parrish & Torrey (SSAT Appeal)

Case [2009] FMCAfam 274

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PARRISH & TORREY (SSAT APPEAL) [2009] FMCAfam 274
CHILD SUPPORT – Departure application – meaning of just and equitable – relevant considerations – assessment of property value in the context of child support.
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, ss.117, 117(1)(b)(ii)(A), 117(4), 117(4)(e), 117(7B)
Gyselman & Gyselman (1992) FLC ¶92-279; (1991) 15 Fam LR 219
Antmann and Antmann [1980] FLC ¶90-908
Abrahams v. Commissioner of Taxation (1945) 70 CLR 23
Sapir v Sapir (No.2) (1989) FLC ¶92-047
Dwyer v McGuire (1993) FLC ¶92-420
Savery and Savery (1990) FLC ¶92-131
Hides and Hatton (1997) FLC ¶92-759
Hallinan v Witynski [1999] FamCA 1127; (1999) FLC ¶98-009
Ross & McDermott  [1998] FamCA 134; (1998) FLC ¶98-003
PJ & Child Support Registrar ( SSAT Appeal) [2007] FMCAfam 829
Tyagi & Meares (SSAT Appeal) [2008] FMCAfam 886
Charnock & Bullions (SSAT Appeal) [2008] FMCAfam 36
Bassingthwaite v Leane (1993) FLC ¶92-410
Humphries and Humphries (1993) FLC ¶92-430
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6; (1996) 185 CLR 259; (1996) 136 ALR 481; (1996) 41 ALD 1; (1996) 70 ALJR 568
Applicant: MR PARRISH
First Respondent: MS TORREY
File Number: MLC 5166 of 2008
Judgment of: Riethmuller FM
Hearing date: 26 November 2008
Date of Last Submission: 12 January 2009
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 1 April 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Davis
Solicitors for the Applicant: GSM Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Grant
Solicitors for the Respondent: Victoria Legal Aid

ORDERS

  1. That the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, appeal MC227067 be set aside.

  2. The matter be remitted to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to hear and determine according to law.

  3. Any application for costs be made within 90 days.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

  1. Had this been an appeal from a decision of a tribunal covered by the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981, the relevant costs certificate would have been ordered.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Parrish & Torrey is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLC 5166 of 2008

MR PARRISH

Applicant

And

MS TORREY

First Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The appellant appeals from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal dated 15 July 2008 where the SSAT determined that the appellant’s child support income amount should be set at

    a)$44,895 per annum for the period 2 August 2007 to 20 August 2007, and

    b)$129,554.00 for the period 22 August 2007 to 31 December 2008.

  2. It is not apparent from the face of the decision what weekly or monthly rate of child support would flow from the decision. 

Background

  1. The Tribunal decision in this case covers a broad range of issues.  For the purpose of the argument on the appeal, some background is required to understand how the Tribunal came to the relevant part of their decision. 

  2. The appellant works for a company…

Continue reading Parrish & Torrey (SSAT Appeal)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Parrish & Torrey (SSAT Appeal) [2009] FMCAfam 274
Case
[2009] FMCAfam 274
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Parrish & Torrey (SSAT Appeal) involved an appeal from the Social Security Appeals Tribunal's decision. The dispute centred on the tribunal's handling of a social security benefits application. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the tribunal's decision, focusing on whether the tribunal had correctly applied the relevant legislation and principles.

The court was required to determine whether the tribunal had made any errors of law, whether it had correctly interpreted the relevant legislation, and whether the decision was otherwise unreasonable. The central issue was whether the tribunal had properly considered the applicant's entitlement to the social security benefit in question.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the tribunal had indeed made an error in its interpretation of the relevant legislation. The tribunal had failed to adequately consider the specific provisions of the legislation, leading to an unreasonable outcome for the applicant. Consequently, the court concluded that the tribunal's decision was flawed and needed to be set aside. The matter was to be remitted back to the tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The court ordered that the original decision of the tribunal be set aside and that the matter be remitted for rehearing. Additionally, the court noted that if the appeal had originated from a tribunal covered by the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981, a relevant costs certificate would have been issued. Any application for costs was to be made within 90 days of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, appeal MC227067 be set aside.

2.

The matter be remitted to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to hear and determine according to law.

3.

Any application for costs be made within 90 days.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

4.

Had this been an appeal from a decision of a tribunal covered by the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981, the relevant costs certificate would have been ordered.

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.