Scacchi and Scacchi (Child support)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the dispute between the parties, referred to as Scacchi and Scacchi, concerning child support payments. The core of the disagreement involved payments made by one parent to a third party for school fees, which the other parent argued should be considered as child support payments. The decision under review related to the assessment of these payments.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the payments made by the father for the children's school fees constituted a "prescribed payment" for the purposes of child support legislation. This involved assessing whether such payments were made with the intention of both parents and whether they were made in circumstances where the children were in the regular care of the payee.

Member J Leonard reasoned that for a payment to be considered a prescribed payment, there must be a clear intention by both parents that the payment is to be treated as child support. In this instance, the Tribunal found that while the father had made the payments for school fees, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the mother shared the intention that these payments would discharge the father's child support obligations. The Tribunal noted that the payments were made directly to the school, a third party, and that the legislative framework requires a specific intention for such payments to be recognised as child support. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted its own.