Rawding and Hamond (Child support) - [2022] AATA 4098

Rawding and Hamond (Child support) [2022] AATA 4098 (27 September 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/AC023726
APPLICANT:  Mr Rawding
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
Ms Hamond

TRIBUNAL:Member J Bakas
DECISION DATE: 27 September 2022
DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – whether there was a ground for departure – no ground for departure established – decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted 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.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

Mr Rawding and Ms Hamond are the parents of [Child 1] (born [date] November 2008) and [Child 2] (born [date] January 2011), in respect of whom a child support assessment is in place. The children are in the shared care of their parents. There is another son, [Child 3], who is over 18 years of age and is not part of the child support assessment.
Mr Rawding applied for a change of assessment on 22 October 2021 on the basis that he believed the assessment to be unjust and inequitable on account of his and Ms Hamond’s income, property and financial resources (Reason 8A) and that the assessment does not properly reflect Ms Hamond’s earning capacity (Reason 8B).
At the time of the application, Mr Rawding was assessed to pay:
3.1.An annual rate of child support of $14,082 for the period 28 September 2021 to 8 November 2021, based on his adjusted taxable income (ATI) of $154,271 (for the 2020/21 year) and an estimated income of $0 (for the 2020/21 year) for Ms Hamond.
3.2.An annual rate of child support of $15,610 for the period 9 November 2021 to 30 June 2022, based on his ATI of $154,271 (for the 2020/21 year) and an estimated income of $0 (for the 2020/21 year) for Ms Hamond. The increase is due to [Child 1] turning [age] years of age.
Mr Rawding’s application was refused on 24 January 2022 as a ground to depart from the administrative assessment was found not to be established. Mr Rawding objected to this decision, but an objections officer disallowed the objection on 2 April 2022.
Mr Rawding applied to the Tribunal for review on 21 April 2022.
The parties participated in a telephone directions hearing on 26 July 2022 and have substantially complied with the directions made at that time. At the hearing, which was held on 6 September 2022, Ms Hamond stated that she never received the supplementary papers from the child support agency numbered C180–C249. They were sent to her following the hearing and she was given an opportunity to provide written submissions.
Following the hearing, both Mr Rawding and Ms Hamond were given a further two weeks to provide a private child support agreement and an amended tax return respectively.

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 Rawding and Hamond (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 4098
Decision Date: 27 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Rawding and Hamond* concerned an application for a departure determination under the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). The applicant sought to depart from the assessed child support amount, alleging that the existing assessment was unfair. The matter came before Judicial Officer Bakas M.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether any of the grounds for departure, as stipulated in section 117 of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*, were established. The applicant bore the onus of proving that a departure from the assessment was justified on one or more of these grounds.

Judicial Officer Bakas M found that the applicant had failed to establish any of the grounds for departure. The court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the relevant provisions of the Act, concluding that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold required to justify a departure from the child support assessment. Consequently, the decision under review, which affirmed the original assessment, was affirmed.

Orders