Reddy and Sharma (Child support)

Ms Reddy sought a review of a decision by the Child Support Registrar (CSA) to refuse her objection to a change of assessment. The dispute concerned whether there were grounds to depart from the standard child support formula assessment for the parties' child, born in 2016. Ms Reddy contended that Mr Sharma, the liable parent, had undisclosed income and financial resources, evidenced by cash deposits into his bank account and a recent vehicle purchase, which suggested his actual financial capacity was higher than his assessed adjusted taxable income.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine if any grounds for departure from the child support assessment existed, specifically under section 117(2)(c)(ia) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, which relates to the income, property, and financial resources of a parent. The Tribunal also needed to consider if, assuming a ground for departure was established, such a departure would be just and equitable and otherwise proper. The starting point for the Tribunal's consideration was that the child support formula should generally apply, and departures are only permitted in "special circumstances," meaning facts peculiar to the case that set it apart from ordinary situations.

The Tribunal found that while Mr Sharma's bank statements showed cash deposits and he had made a superannuation withdrawal, the evidence did not establish that his income materially exceeded the threshold that would trigger a higher child support assessment than the fixed annual rate. Mr Sharma had explained the deposits as arising from the sale of a car, his income from employment, and assistance from friends. Although some explanations were vague, the Tribunal was not satisfied that his income likely exceeded approximately $35,000 per annum in the period in question, which was the level required for a departure from the fixed annual rate. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that no special circumstances existed to make the formula assessment unjust or inequitable.

As the Tribunal found no ground for departure, it did not proceed to consider whether a departure would be just and equitable. The decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of Ms Reddy's objection, was therefore affirmed.