S & S

The applicant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court concerning a child support departure application. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had established "special circumstances" under the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth) to justify a departure from the standard child support assessment formula. The applicant argued that if the standard assessment resulted in a sum exceeding the child's needs, as determined by specific research, this fact alone should constitute special circumstances, even if it did not precisely fit the statutory grounds.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's argument that a child support assessment exceeding the child's needs, based on alternative research, constituted "special circumstances" under section 117(2) of the Act. Specifically, the court had to consider if this interpretation of "special circumstances" was permissible under the legislative framework and relevant case law, or if it fell outside the prescribed grounds for departure.

Justice Warnick reasoned that the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* provides a comprehensive scheme for child support assessment, aiming for equitable sharing of resources and ease of ascertainment without resort to court proceedings. Section 117(2) strictly limits the grounds upon which a departure from the standard assessment can be made, including specific provisions for the child's needs, contact costs, and special needs. The court found that the applicant's submission that a discrepancy between the assessed amount and the child's needs, based on external research, constituted special circumstances was a misconception of the Act. To allow such an argument would, in the court's view, "open the flood gates" to every separated parent seeking to have their child's needs microscopically examined outside the established framework. The court reiterated that a ground under section 117(2) must first be established before the court can examine the justice and equity of an assessment, including the child's proper needs and parental capacity.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the mother's costs of and incidental to the application.