Ramsey and Ramsey - [2016] FCCA 1894

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAMSEY & RAMSEY

[2016] FCCA 1894

Catchwords:
CHILD SUPPORT – Binding Child Support Agreement – Application to set aside binding child support agreement – application for declaration that child support agreement not binding – whether exceptional circumstances established.

Legislation:

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), ss.80C, 136

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.90G

Cases cited:

Hoult v Hoult (2013) 276 FLR 412; 50 Fam LR 260; FLC 93-546; [2013] FamCAFC 109

Ramsey & Ramsey [2012] FMCAfam 739

Applicant:

MR RAMSEY

Respondent:

MS RAMSEY

File Number:

SYC 1968 of 2008

Judgment of:

Judge Scarlett

Hearing dates:

9-11 April 2014

Date of Last Submission:

11 April 2014

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

26 July 2016

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

In person

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Armstrong Legal

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Dart

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Monardo Lawyers

ORDERS

The Amended Initiating Application filed on 10 April 2014 is dismissed.
Any party seeking an Order for costs must file and serve an Application in a Case and an affidavit setting out the amount of costs sought and the basis upon which those costs are calculated within one (1) month of the date of this Order.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Ramsey & Ramsey is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 1968 of 2008

MR RAMSEY

Applicant

And

MS RAMSEY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

By his Amended Initiating Application filed on 10^th April 2014, midway through a defended final hearing, the Applicant seeks the following Orders:
1. That the Binding Child Support Agreement executed by the parties on 2 March 2010 be declared not binding.
2. Alternatively, that the Binding Child Support Agreement executed by the parties on 2 March 2010 be set aside.
3. That the arrears accrued in respect of the Binding Child Support Agreement be discharges.
4. That the Father pays child support for the children of the relationship as assessed by the Child Support Agency.
5. That the Mother’s remaining Applications be dismissed.
6. That the Mother pays the Father’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings.
The Application is opposed by the Respondent.

Background

The parties were married on (omitted) 1996. They were divorced by order of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 20^th May 2008.
There are two children of the marriage, a boy who was born on (omitted) 1999 and a girl who was born on (omitted) 2001. They reside with the Respondent Mother.
On 18^th June 2009 the Applicant commenced proceedings in the Family Court seeking parenting and property orders.
The Applicant remarried on (omitted) 2009.
On 2^nd March 2010 the parties entered into Consent Orders resolving the parenting and property issues between them. They also entered into the Binding Child Support Agreement the subject of this Application.
The Applicant and his current wife became the parents of a baby boy on (omitted) 2010.
On…

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 Ramsey and Ramsey

Details

AGLC: Ramsey and Ramsey [2016] FCCA 1894
Case: [2016] FCCA 1894
Decision Date: 26 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Ramsey and Ramsey*, the applicant sought to bring proceedings against the respondent. The nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but the court was required to consider the applicant's Amended Initiating Application. The decision was made by Judge Scarlett.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's Amended Initiating Application should be dismissed. The court was tasked with determining the merits of this application and whether it had sufficient grounds to proceed.

Judge Scarlett dismissed the Amended Initiating Application. The court did not provide detailed reasons for this dismissal in the excerpt. Following this determination, the court made orders regarding costs, stipulating that any party seeking costs must file a formal application and supporting affidavit within one month.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Amended Initiating Application filed on 10 April 2014 is dismissed.

Any party seeking an Order for costs must file and serve an Application in a Case and an affidavit setting out the amount of costs sought and the basis upon which those costs are calculated within one (1) month of the date of this Order.

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.