PENMAN & MORGAN - [2020] FCCA 113

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PENMAN & MORGAN

[2020] FCCA 113

Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Want of jurisdiction in the Court – orders made.

Legislation:

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), s.116(1)

Cases cited:

Penman & Morgan [2019] FamCA 146

Applicant:

MR PENMAN

Respondent:

MS MORGAN

File Number:

PAC 4564 of 2019

Judgment of:

Judge Newbrun

Hearing date:

16 December 2019

Date of Last Submission:

16 December 2019

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

29 January 2020

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

The Respondent appeared in person

ORDERS

The father’s Initiating Application filed 16 September 2019 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the Court.
The father’s Application in a Case filed 16 January 2020 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the Court.
The return date for this latter application on 20 April 2020 is vacated.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Penman & Morgan is approved pursuant to s.110X(4)(h) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 4564 of 2019

MR PENMAN

Applicant

And

MS MORGAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Applicant father, having filed an Initiating Application on 16 September 2019, and an Application in a Case on 16 January 2020 (in relation to proposed interim orders, which repeat his proposed interim orders in his Initiating Application), seeks final and interim orders, inter alia, that the mother be responsible for the payment of any and all school fees and expenses of B School for the child [C] born … 2005.
In the alternative to that proposed order, the father seeks an order that the mother be responsible for the payment of 50% of such school fees for the said child.
The father seeks other proposed orders, in the alternative, that the mother provide certain information to the Child Support Agency “of her consent that any and all school fees and expenses of B School for (the subject child) be considered eligible for the father to claim as child support payments.”
The father then seeks an order that the mother take certain action to inform the Child Support Agency of her consent that any and all past school fees and expenses of B School for the subject child made by the father be considered eligible for the father to claim as child support payments. He seeks other facilitative orders.
The mother seeks that the father’s above applications be dismissed.
The father annexes to his Initiating Application the judgment of Stevenson J in the Family Court of Australia dated 15 March 2019 (Penman & Morgan [2019] FamCA 146). In that judgment, Her Honour dismissed the father’s proposed orders that related to issues of child support.
It is helpful at this point to set out paragraphs 15 to 30 and 93 to 102 of Her Honour’s judgment.
15. The history in relation to child support disputation was set out in the reasons for judgment of Watts J of 24 April 2018 as follows:

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.

Continue reading PENMAN & MORGAN

Details

AGLC: PENMAN & MORGAN [2020] FCCA 113
Case: [2020] FCCA 113
Decision Date: 29 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Penman & Morgan*, heard by Judge Newbrun, the father sought orders concerning child support. The proceedings were brought before the Court by the father's Initiating Application filed on 16 September 2019 and a subsequent Application in a Case filed on 16 January 2020.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it possessed jurisdiction to hear and determine the father's applications.

Judge Newbrun determined that the Court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the father's applications. Consequently, the father's Initiating Application and his Application in a Case were dismissed. The scheduled return date for the latter application on 20 April 2020 was also vacated.

Orders

Orders of the court

The father’s Initiating Application filed 16 September 2019 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the Court.

The father’s Application in a Case filed 16 January 2020 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the Court.

The return date for this latter application on 20 April 2020 is vacated.

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.