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
The Appellant Mr Pryor is to pay the costs of the Second Respondent Child Support Registrar in the sum of $6,581.00.
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
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.
[1] [2015] FCCA 1240
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.
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
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.
In his affidavit the Appellant deposed:
Appellant in the case SYC 1484 of 2013 in his NOTICE OF APPEAL relied on…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] FCCA 2965
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.