Saddington and Meegan (Child support) - [2022] AATA 4013

Saddington and Meegan (Child support) [2022] AATA 4013 (26 August 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER: 2022/MC023181
APPLICANT: Mr Saddington

OTHER PARTIES: Child Support Registrar

Ms Meegan

TRIBUNAL: Member P Jensen, Presiding Member

Member J Prentice

DECISION DATE: 26 August 2022

DECISION:

The decision under review is set aside and, in substitution, Mr Saddington’s departure application is refused.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – departure determination – income, property and financial resources – no ground for departure established – decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

Mr Saddington and Ms Meegan are the parents of [Child 1] and [Child 2]. Administrative assessments of child support for [Child 1] and [Child 2] commenced from 26 March 2018. The Child Support Agency (“the CSA”) calculated the rate of child support payable pursuant to a formula in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (“the Act”). From 30 June 2018 the administrative assessments were based on Mr Saddington’s 2016-17 adjusted taxable income of $55,945, Ms Meegan’s 2016-17 adjusted taxable income of $53,414, Mr Saddington’s 24% care and Ms Meegan’s 76% care for the children. Mr Saddington was assessed to pay $4,848 per annum in child support. There have been subsequent changes in the parents’ care of the children but it is not necessary to recount all of those changes.
The Act also provides for a departure from the administrative assessments in certain circumstances. On 5 July 2018, Ms Meegan lodged a departure application. The matter made its way to the Tribunal and it was heard by Member Hewson (as she then was) on 5 December 2019. She made a departure decision on 8 July 2020. She varied Mr Saddington’s adjusted taxable income to $122,000 per annum from 5 July 2018 to 31 March 2020. Her decision and the reasons for her decision were emailed to the parties on 17 July 2020. None of the parties appealed her decision.
On 1 September 2020 the Family Court of Australia made a departure order with the parents’ consent. The CSA has interpreted the departure order to mean that no child support is payable from 26 December 2020. The departure order includes the following note: “[Mr Saddington and Ms Meegan] agree that these Orders are intended to finalise their future child support obligations and as far as possible avoid further proceedings between them with respect to child support.”
On 26 December 2020, [Child 1] turned 18, which constituted a child support terminating event in respect of the administrative assessment for [Child 1].
On 3 May 2021, Mr Saddington lodged a departure application.
On 30 August 2021, Ms Meegan decided to end the administrative assessment for [Child 2].
On 24 September 2021 an original decision-maker…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Saddington and Meegan (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] AATA 4013
Decision Date: 26 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by the father, Saddington, against a departure determination made by the Registrar of the Child Support Agency. The Registrar had determined that the mother, Meegan, was entitled to a departure from the standard child support assessment, based on the father's alleged failure to provide full and accurate particulars of his income, property, and financial resources. The father sought to have this departure determination set aside.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar had erred in finding that there was a ground for departure from the child support assessment. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the father had failed to provide full and accurate particulars of his income, property, and financial resources, and if so, whether this failure constituted a ground for departure under the relevant provisions of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*.

The court reviewed the evidence presented by both parties and the Registrar's findings. It was held that the Registrar had not been satisfied that the father had failed to provide full and accurate particulars of his income, property, and financial resources. The court found that the information provided by the father was sufficient for the purposes of the assessment, and therefore, no ground for departure was established. Consequently, the Registrar's departure determination was set aside and substituted with a decision that no departure was warranted.

Orders