Roylance and Roylance (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, Mr Roylance, seeking a review of a decision by the Child Support Registrar. The dispute centred on whether certain post-separation costs incurred by Mr Roylance should be excluded from his adjusted taxable income for the purposes of a child support administrative assessment. The review was heard by Senior Member R Ellis of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Registrar had erred in refusing to make a determination under section 117(2)(b) of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) to exclude specific post-separation expenses from Mr Roylance's adjusted taxable income. This involved considering whether these expenses were of a kind that the Registrar had the power to exclude and whether the circumstances warranted such an exclusion.

Senior Member Ellis reasoned that the Registrar's refusal was based on a misinterpretation of the scope of section 117(2)(b). The Tribunal found that the expenses in question, relating to the maintenance of a second home and associated costs incurred after separation, were indeed of a kind that could be considered for exclusion under the provision. The Tribunal applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*, concluding that the Registrar had a discretion to exclude such costs if they were considered to be of a kind that should not be regarded as available for child support purposes.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and substituted its own determination. It ordered that the post-separation costs incurred by Mr Roylance, as detailed in the application, be excluded from his adjusted taxable income for the relevant child support assessment period.