Reynolds and Mull (Child support)

The case of *Reynolds and Mull* concerned a dispute regarding child support payments, specifically whether certain non-agency payments made by the father, Mr Mull, should be recognised as satisfying his child support obligations. The decision was made by Member P Jensen of the relevant tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether car loan repayments and rent payments made by Mr Mull to Ms Reynolds, the mother, constituted payments in lieu of child support, and if so, whether these payments should be recognised as satisfying his child support assessment. The tribunal was required to determine if these payments fell within the exceptions to the general rule that child support must be paid through the Child Support Agency.

Member P Jensen reasoned that for non-agency payments to be recognised, they must be made pursuant to an agreement between the parties that specifically designates them as child support. In this instance, the car loan repayments and rent payments were not explicitly agreed to be in lieu of child support. Consequently, the tribunal found that these payments did not meet the criteria for recognition as child support payments. The decision under review, which had apparently recognised these payments, was therefore set aside and substituted.

The tribunal ordered that the decision under review be set aside and substituted with a new decision that did not recognise the car loan repayments and rent payments as satisfying Mr Mull's child support obligations.