Pryor and Pearce and Anor (No.2)

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRYOR & PEARCE & ANOR (No.2) [2015] FCCA 2965
Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Costs of SSAT Appeal – submission by Appellant as to why an order for costs should not be made against him – where Appeal misconceived and entirely lacking in merit – where Appellant wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings.

Legislation:

Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth), s.105

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.117

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, Sch.1, Part 2, Div.2

Cases cited:
Pryor & Pearce & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2015] FCCA 1240
Appellant: MR PRYOR
First Respondent: MS PEARCE
Second Respondent: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
File Number: SYC 1484 of 2013
Judgment of: Judge Scarlett
Hearing date: Considered in chambers
Date of Last Submission: 25 May 2015
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 11 November 2015

REPRESENTATION

Appellant: No appearance
First Respondent: No appearance
Second Respondent: No appearance
Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

  1. The Appellant Mr Pryor is to pay the costs of the Second Respondent Child Support Registrar in the sum of $6,581.00.

  2. The Appellant is allowed one (1) month to pay.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 1484 of 2013

MR PRYOR

Appellant

And

MS PEARCE

First Respondent

CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

  1. The Appellant was unsuccessful in his Appeal to this Court against a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (Pryor & Pearce & Anor[1]). The Second Respondent, the Child Support Registrar, sought an order for costs fixed in the amount of $6,581.00, calculated in accordance with Division 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Rules.

  2. On dismissing the Appeal on 15 May 2015, I made an Order giving the Appellant leave to file and serve within 21 days a written submission to show cause why an Order should not be made that he pay the costs of the Child Support Registrar in the sum of $6,581.00.

  3. When I considered the Registrar’s Application for costs, I expressed the view that:

    There is some force to the submission that an order for costs should be made against the Appellant, who has brought an entirely meritless appeal. However, procedural fairness requires that he should be given the opportunity to make a submission to show cause why an order for costs in that amount should not be made. I propose to allow 21 days for such a submission to be made.[2]

    [2] [2015] FCCA 1240 at paragraph [37]

The Appellant’s Affidavit

  1. The Appellant filed an affidavit on 25 May 2015, made that same day, which he stated was made as a written submission in accordance with the Order of 15 May.

  2. In his affidavit the Appellant deposed:

    Appellant in the case SYC 1484 of 2013 in his NOTICE OF APPEAL relied on…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pryor and Pearce and Anor (No.2) 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
[2015] FCCA 2965
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Pryor and Pearce and Anor (No.2)*, the appellant, Mr Pryor, appealed a decision concerning child support payments. The dispute involved the calculation and assessment of child support obligations. The matter was heard by Judge Scarlett.

The primary legal issue before the court was the correct assessment of child support payable by Mr Pryor, specifically in relation to the interpretation and application of the relevant child support legislation. This included determining the appropriate income to be considered for the assessment and the impact of certain financial arrangements on that assessment.

Judge Scarlett's reasoning focused on the statutory framework governing child support. The court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to ascertain the legislative intent behind the provisions relating to income assessment. The court found that the appellant's submissions regarding the exclusion of certain income were not supported by the legislation. Consequently, the court upheld the original assessment, finding it to be consistent with the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth).

The court ordered that the appellant, Mr Pryor, pay the costs of the Second Respondent, the Child Support Registrar, in the sum of $6,581.00, with one month allowed for payment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Appellant Mr Pryor is to pay the costs of the Second Respondent Child Support Registrar in the sum of $6,581.00.

2.

The Appellant is allowed one (1) month to pay.

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.