RAN & CAR - [2006] FamCA 73

[2006] FamCA 73

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

IN THE FULL COURT

OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT BRISBANE Appeal No. NA 26L of 2004

File No. TVF 680 of 2001

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAN

Appellant

- and -

CAR

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEFORE:                   Bryant CJ, Finn and Holden JJ
HEARD:  8 October 2004
JUDGMENT:              22 February 2006

APPEARANCES: The appellant appeared in person

The respondent appeared in person

APPEAL SUMMARY

MATTER:RAN & CAR
APPEAL NUMBER:  NA 26L of 2004
(TVF 680 of 2001)
CORAM:Bryant CJ, Finn and Holden JJ
DATE OF HEARING:  8 October 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:  22 February 2006
CATCHWORDS:                FAMILY LAW – APPEALS – LEAVE TO APPEAL – CHILD SUPPORT – DEPARTURE ORDER – EARNING CAPACITY – where lifestyle choice has reduced father’s earning capacity – where father sought substitution of actual income earned during assessment periods for imputed notional earning capacity – where father alleges no evidence to support assessment of earning capacity – whether ‘special circumstances’ established

STATUTE LAW CITED:

Child Support Assessment Act 1989 (Cth), ss. 4, 102, 114, 117

CASE LAW CITED:

Wild v Ballard (1997) FLC ¶92-771

Hendy v Deputy Child Support Registrar (2001) 27 Fam LR 641

STP v MIF [2004] FamCA 651

Gyselman & Gyselman (1992) FLC ¶92-279

Leave to appeal refused

Introduction

This is an application for leave to appeal by the father against orders made by Barry J on the 12 December 2003 dismissing an application by the father for a departure from the administrative provisions of child support pursuant to section 117 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (“the Act”). The application was filed on 13 December 2002.
In his application filed on 13 December 2002, the father sought that “all assessments made by the CSA (Child Support Agency) be set aside, including arrears of payment; that the child support amount be calculated on his actual income; and that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs.” However at trial, and before us, the orders sought by the father were as follows:
“1.       That I pay the $242 owing for assessment period 1.
2.        That I not be deemed at any rate other than my actual earning.
3.        That I commence paying child support from April 3 2002, commensurate with when I resume working.
4.        That we continue the present arrangement of garnishing my wage at 20% of gross earnings.
5.        That I pay a total of $2144 outstanding of the above arrangement.
6.        That all present accrued debts and penalties from previous CSA     calculations be cancelled.”
In dismissing the father’s application, the practical effect was the continuation of the assessment of Senior Case Officer Riethmuller made on 29 July 2002.

Background facts

The background facts, which we do not understand to have been in dispute, may be summarised as follows.
The father was born in 1958 and was at the date of the hearing a medical practitioner employed in private practice in North Queensland. The mother was born in 1959 and…

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 RAN & CAR

Details

AGLC: RAN & CAR [2006] FamCA 73
Case: [2006] FamCA 73
Decision Date: 22 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning a dispute between RAN and CAR. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved a matter brought before the court for determination.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were to determine the correct interpretation and application of certain provisions of Australian law relevant to the dispute between RAN and CAR. The court was required to consider the legal principles governing the parties' respective rights and obligations in the context of their disagreement.

The judgment of the court, delivered by Bryant CJ, Finn and Holden JJ, addressed the legal arguments presented by the parties. The reasoning focused on the application of established legal principles to the facts of the case, aiming to provide a just and lawful resolution. The court's decision would have clarified the legal position of RAN and CAR in relation to the matters in dispute.

Orders