Penman & Child Support Registrar & Anor

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PENMAN & CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR AND ANOR [2018] FamCA 252

FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Where the father pursues an application for a departure order pursuant to s 118(1)(b) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (“the Assessment Act”) varying earlier administrative assessments requiring the payment of child support in respect of the parties’ three children – Where the Child Support Registrar opposes the father’s application primarily, but not only because, the Registrar says what the father is attempting to do is an abuse of process, given the remedies the father has already exhausted – Where the continued prosecution by the father of his application is an abuse of process and an attempt to re-litigate by a different path what the father had already agitated by the usual path set in the Assessment Act and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 Cth) – Where leave under s 112(1) of the Assessment Act should not be granted in relation to part of the application relating to the parties’ eldest child and any order in relation to that child can only be backdated 18 months prior to the application – Where the father’s application in relation to the parties’ youngest child is dismissed as it does not change the current assessment and is nugatory – Where the applications left relate to the parties’ eldest child from 1 January 2012 to 17 April 2014 and the parties’ middle child from 7 January 2013 to 17 April 2014 – Where the only ground of departure relied upon by the father was s 117(2)(b)(ii) – Where consent orders entered into by the parties and the paternal grandmother in June 2011 provide for the children to live with their parents for 50 per cent of the time that they are available to live with their parents whilst they are not at boarding school – Where the basis upon which the mother consented for the children to go to boarding school was that the father or paternal grandmother pay for those costs and the ground for departing pursuant to s 117(2)(b)(ii) does not arise – Where considerations under s 117(4) of the Assessment Act do not allow a conclusion that it was just and equitable to make the departure orders sought – Where it is not otherwise proper to make the departure orders sought – Where, in the alternative, the orders sought would also not be just and equitable or otherwise proper because the proceedings are an abuse of process

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the father’s financial circumstances do not preclude making a costs order – Where the Registrar ought not bear the costs of reasonably defending an unreasonable attack – Where the material relied upon by the father is prolix – Where the father has been wholly unsuccessful – Where an order for costs is made on a party/party basis to be agreed or assessed

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)
Child Support (Registration…