Preece and Child Support Registrar (Child support) - [2022] AATA 5230

Preece and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2022] AATA 5230 (6 December 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/SC024842
APPLICANT:  Mr Preece
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
TRIBUNAL:Senior Member F Hewson
DECISION DATE:  6 December 2022

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – dismissal of application for review – no reviewable decision – application for review dismissed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW:

The AAT is satisfied that the decision is not reviewable by the AAT and dismisses the application for review pursuant to subsection 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The reasons for this decision follow.
On 1 September 2022, Mr Preece lodged an application for AAT first review with the Social Services and Child Support Division.
An application may be made for AAT first review of a decision listed in section 89 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. On 17 October 2022 Services Australia (the Agency) advised the AAT it could not identify from the information in Mr Preece’s application a reviewable decision about which he was seeking review.
On 28 October 2022 the AAT wrote to Mr Preece about the proposed dismissal of his application and invited him to provide evidence of a reviewable decision having been made. Mr Preece subsequently submitted further documents.
I considered Mr Preece’s application and the further documents submitted by him along with a letter to the AAT headed “APPLICATION FOR REVIEW of the Child Support inaction regarding my money under robbery and extortion by the Child Support after the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction expired. NO RESPONSE TO My APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE CSRC ACT 1988.”
The most recent documents submitted by Mr Preece include a translated copy of a judgment of the District Court of [Town] in [Country], dated 23 November 2022, which states that the enforceability of an order issued on 28 September 2006 has been revoked. This judgment was made after the date of Mr Preece’s application to the AAT and any decision made by the Registrar in response to it would not be a reviewable decision for the purpose of the current application.
In his current application Mr Preece raises issues addressed by me in detail in a decision in relation to an earlier application lodged by him (2022/SC023323). In response to information received from the District Court of [Town] in June 2016 the Registrar amended the Child Support Register with the effect of removing the liability for spousal maintenance which had previously been recorded. It is clear that Mr Preece is not satisfied that the Child Support Register has been amended correctly and it appears to be in relation to this he states he has had response to an application made under…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Preece and Child Support Registrar (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] AATA 5230
Decision Date: 6 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Preece, sought a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. However, the Senior Member of the Tribunal determined that there was no reviewable decision before it, leading to the dismissal of Preece's application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Registrar's action, or lack thereof, constituted a "decision" that could be subject to review under the relevant legislation. Specifically, the Tribunal had to ascertain if the Registrar had made a determination or taken an action that fell within the definition of a reviewable decision.

Senior Member Hewson reasoned that the Child Support (Registration and Collections) Act 1984 (Cth) and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) define what constitutes a reviewable decision. In this instance, the Registrar had not made a formal decision that met these criteria. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for review. The application was therefore dismissed on the basis that no reviewable decision had been made by the Registrar.

Orders