Roughan and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, Mr Roughan, to revoke a Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) made against him by the Child Support Registrar. The dispute centred on whether the applicant's child support liability was such that a DPO was warranted, and if so, whether there were grounds for its revocation. The decision was made by Senior Member A Poljak in the context of child support legislation.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant had a continuing child support liability as defined by the Act, and secondly, whether satisfactory arrangements had been made for this liability to be wholly discharged. The court also considered the Registrar's discretion to revoke or vary a DPO under section 72I(3) of the Act, and whether the debt was irrecoverable, which would preclude the satisfaction of section 72I(1)(a).

Senior Member Poljak reasoned that the applicant did indeed have a child support liability, evidenced by a certificate confirming an unpaid debt of $88,441.12 in child support and $14,973.54 in penalties. However, the court found that the applicant had made satisfactory arrangements for the discharge of this liability, despite its significant size and the delayed assessment. This conclusion was based on the applicant's consistent monthly payments since November 2015, a lump sum payment of $71,680.28 in October 2016, and the fact that the debt was not irrecoverable, as evidenced by these payments. The court applied a "common sense approach" to assessing the satisfactory nature of the payment arrangements, considering the size of the liability, the applicant's circumstances, and their capacity to repay.

Consequently, the court set aside the decision under review and substituted a finding that the applicant satisfied section 72I(1)(b) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth). The Departure Prohibition Order made on 2 September 2016 was ordered to be revoked.