SCVG and KLD (No 2)

[2019] FamCA 245

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCVG & KLD (NO. 2) [2019] FamCA 245

FAMILY LAW – JURISDICTION – Inherent jurisdiction – Transfer of Proceedings.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) Part IVA

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s 39
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) rule 16.05(2)(b)

Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015 (Cth)

Norton & Locke [2013] FamCAFC 202
SCVG & KLD [2018] FamCA 27

APPLICANT: Mr SCVG

RESPONDENT: Ms KLD

FILE NUMBER: SYC 5956 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 18 April 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 19 March 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Self-Represented

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Stenhouse

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Macphillamy's Lawyers

Orders

1. The Family Court of Australia has jurisdiction to determine the application by Mr SCVG to set aside by reason of fraud orders relating to an appeal from the SSAT made by Judge Scarlett of the Federal Circuit Court on 30 April 2015.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym SCVG & KLD has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: SYC 5956 of 2016

Mr SCVG

Applicant

And

Ms KLD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. By an application in a case filed 11 December 2017 Mr SCVG seeks to set aside orders made by Judge Scarlett of the Federal Circuit Court on 30 April 2015, being a determination on appeal from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The application seeks to set aside the orders on the basis of fraud pursuant to rule 16.05(2)(b) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth). An issue has arisen as to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain such an application.

2. Although the issue of jurisdiction was initially raised by Ms KLD, both parties agree that the Court does have jurisdiction (while accepting that consent does not confer jurisdiction). In order to assist the Court, and as a matter of courtesy, Ms KLD provided written submissions to support the case for jurisdiction.  Mr SCVG did not seek to add to those submissions.

3. The proceedings before Judge Scarlett were an appeal from a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (the “SSAT”) made in March 2013, setting aside an earlier decision by the Child Support Agency.  The jurisdiction exercised by Judge Scarlett is now controlled by Part IVA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act) and, while at the time the jurisdiction exercised by Judge Scarlett could also have been exercised…