Rolex and Wellington (Child support)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Rolex, against a decision of the Child Support Registrar regarding the percentage of care for the parties' child. The dispute centred on the Registrar's determination of the likely pattern of care, which had been made under section 87AA of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth). The appeal was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Registrar's decision to make a determination under subsection 87AA(2) was correct, and whether the objection lodged by Rolex was within the required timeframe. The court was also required to consider the date of effect of the objection decision.

The court found that the Registrar had erred in making a determination under subsection 87AA(2) of the Act, as the circumstances did not warrant such a determination. Furthermore, the court determined that Rolex's objection had been lodged within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the court set aside the Registrar's decision and substituted its own determination regarding the percentage of care.